Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00566/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00566-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

08cv0115

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD MARTIN SAENZ, JR.

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF CORR.

AND REHAB., et al.,

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-CV-0566-WQH (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1. Introduction And Procedural Background.

Petitioner is a state parolee. On June 23, 2003, he pled

guilty to one count of a lewd act upon a child in violation of

Cal. Penal Code § 288(a). (Rspt.’s Lodgment Nos. 1 & 3.) On

July 22, 2003, the court sentenced Petitioner to three (3) years

in state prison. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 4.) Petitioner did not

appeal his conviction. (Third Amended Petition [doc. no. 10] at

¶¶ 10-13.)

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00566-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 08cv0115

Petitioner waited almost four (4) years before filing the

first of three state petitions for collateral review. (See

Rspt.’s Lodgment Nos. 5, 7, & 9.) On July 20, 2007, Petitioner

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in San Diego Superior

Court (Case No. HC 19005), contending that he was entitled to be

excused from lifetime sex-offender registration under Cal. Penal

Code § 290. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 5.) That court denied the

petition on September 11, 2007. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 6.) On

October 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in the California Court of Appeal (Case No. DO51810),

raising the same claim raised in his petition filed in the

superior court. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 7.) On January 31, 2008,

that court denied the petition. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 8.)

On February 14, 2008, Petitioner attempted to file a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court (Case No.

S161199), raising the same claim raised in his state petitions

for collateral review. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 9.) The record

reflects that the California Supreme Court rejected the petition

on procedural grounds, and Petitioner filed an Application for

Relief from Default on February 26, 2008. (Id.) On March 3,

2008, that court denied Petitioner’s application and returned his

Petition for Review to him. (Rspt.’s Lodgment No. 10.)

On March 25, 2008, Petitioner filed his first Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court, contending

that he is entitled to be excused from lifetime sex-offender

registration under Cal. Penal Code § 290. (Petition [Dkt. No.

1].) After the Court ordered the Petition dismissed without

prejudice and with leave to amend for multiple procedural defiCase 3:08-cv-00566-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) states: “A 1-year period of limitation

shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation

period shall run from the latest of — (A) the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which

the impediment to filing an application created by State action in

violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed,

if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C)

the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual

predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence.”

3 08cv0115

ciencies [Dkt. No. 3], on April 23, 2008, Petitioner filed a

First Amended Petition raising the same claim. [Dkt. No. 6] On

May 5, 2008, the Court dismissed that petition without prejudice

and with leave to amend [Dkt. No. 7] and, on May 21, 2008,

Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. [Dkt. No. 8] After

the Court ordered the Second Amended Petition dismissed without

prejudice and with leave to amend on June 5, 2008 [Dkt. No. 9],

Petitioner filed a Third Amended Petition on July 8, 2008. [Dkt.

No. 10] 

On September 10, 2008, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss

the Third Amended Petition, contending that it is time-barred by

the one-year statute of limitations set out in the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)1. [Dkt. No. 16.] Petitioner did not file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

As discussed below, the Third Amended Petition should be

dismissed with prejudice because it is time-barred.

2. The Third Amended Petition Is Time-Barred Under The AEDPA.

The Third Amended Petition should be dismissed. The AEDPA’s

statute of limitations applies to Petitioner’s presentation of

Case 3:08-cv-00566-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Petitioner did not file his petition for writ of habeas corpus

in San Diego Superior Court until July 20, 2007, almost three (3)

years after the federal statute of limitations had expired on

September 21, 2004. Thus, the pendency of that petition, or any other

petition filed subsequently by Petitioner, could not toll the alreadyexpired limitations period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See

Calderon v. U. S. District Court, 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997),

overruled in part on other grounds by Calderon v. U.S. District Court, 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998).

4 08cv0115

claims in this Court. Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended on denial of

rhg. and rhg. en banc, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 (1998),

overruled on other grounds in Calderon v. U.S. District Court,

163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1063 (1999). 

Because he did not file a direct appeal, Petitioner’s conviction

became final on September 20, 2003, 60 days after he was sentenced in state court on July 22, 2003. (Cal. Rules of Court,

Rule 8.308; Lewis v. Mitchell, 173 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1060 (C.D.

Cal. 2001)). Accordingly, absent any applicable tolling,

Petitioner had until September 21, 2004 to file his federal

habeas Petition.2 Id.; see Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243

(9th Cir. 2001)(Rule 6(a), F.R.Civ.P., governs the calculation of

the 1-year statute of limitations period of the AEDPA).

As set forth above, Petitioner did not file his original

federal Petition until March 25, 2008, three and one-half (31⁄2)

years after the statute of limitations had expired on September

21, 2004. Because the 1-year statute of limitations had already

expired when Petitioner filed his first federal petition in this

Court, the Third Amended Petition is time-barred.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00566-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/21/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 08cv0115

3. Conclusion and Recommendation.

After a thorough review of the record in this matter, the

undersigned magistrate judge finds that Petitioner did not timely

file his Petition under the AEDPA. Therefore, this Court hereby

recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition be

GRANTED, the Third Amended Petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE,

and that judgment be entered accordingly.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that not later than December 12, 2008, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy

on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed not later than December 29, 2008. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00566-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 11/21/08 Page 5 of 5