Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01703/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01703-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Powell703mtdtime.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN JEROME POWELL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

G. SWARTHOUT,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 13-1703 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 26)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by

the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The court issued an order to show cause. In lieu of

an answer, respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. Petitioner filed an

opposition. 5espondent did not file a reply. For the reasons statedEHORZWKHFRXUW*5$176

respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 56 years and eight months to life in state prison

after being convicted of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and possession of a

firearm by a felon. (MTD at 1.) The California Court of Appeal affirmed (id. at 2; Pet., Att. E),

and on March 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied review (MTD at 2; Pet., Att. D). 

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Superior Court which was denied on March 21,

(),/('

Case 5:13-cv-01703-RMW Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Powell703mtdtime.wpd 2

2012. (Pet. Att. A.) Petitioner then filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of

Appeal which was denied on May 15, 2012. (Pet. Att. B.) Petitioner finally filed a state habeas

petition in the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on

January 3, 2013, with citations to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998); In re Waltreus, 62

Cal.2d 218, 225 (1965); and In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (1953). (Pet. Att. C.) 

Petitioner filed the underlying amended petition on May 5, 2014. See Saffold v.

Newland, 250 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2001) (pro se prisoner’s federal habeas petition is

deemed filed when prisoner delivers petition to prison authorities for mailing), vacated and

remanded on other grounds, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) became law on

April 24, 1996, and imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct

review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time

during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

“Direct review” includes the period within which a petitioner can file a petition for writ

of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, whether or not the petitioner actually files

such a petition. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, if a petitioner

fails to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, the AEDPA’s one-year

limitations period begins to run on the date the ninety-day period defined by Supreme Court

Rule 13 expires. See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 5:13-cv-01703-RMW Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 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

 Neither petitioner nor respondent definitively know when petitioner filed his state

habeas petition in the Superior Court. However, both agree that, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court,

Rule 4.551(a)(3)(A), the earliest petitioner could have filed it was January 21, 2012.

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Powell703mtdtime.wpd 3

Here, petitioner’s conviction became final on June 28, 2011, ninety days after the

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. See id. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1)(A), AEDPA’s one-year limitation period began to run the following day, and

expired one year later, on June 28, 2012. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.

2001). Therefore, unless statutory or equitable tolling saves the petition, petitioner’s federal

petition is untimely.

The one-year statute of limitations is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) for the “time during

which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with

respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Here, petitioner

filed his first state habeas petition on or about January 21, 2012.1 It was denied on March 21,

2012. Then, petitioner filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on

May 15, 2012. The limitations period was tolled from January 21, 2012 through May 15, 2012. 

On January 21, 2012, 206 days of his limitations period had passed. Thus, petitioner had 159

days from May 15, 2012 left in his limitations period.

Although petitioner did file a petition in the California Supreme Court on October 26,

2012, that petition does not toll the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s California Supreme Court

petition was denied on January 3, 2013, with citations to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780

(1998); In re Waltreus, 62 Cal.2d 218, 225 (1965); and In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (1953). 

A California court’s citation of In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998), is a clear ruling that

the petition was untimely. Thorson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007) (denial of

petition with citation to Robbins at page opinion discusses timeliness determinations was clear

denial on timeliness grounds and therefore petition was neither “properly filed” nor “pending”). 

“When a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for

the purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (citing Carey v.

Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002)). “Because the state court rejected petitioner’s

Case 5:13-cv-01703-RMW Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 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 appears to argue that rather than use the date his amended petition was filed,

the court should use the date upon which this case was opened, which was April 16, 2013. (Opp.

at 3.) On April 16, 2013, petitioner had initiated this action by filing a one-page motion to stay

and hold the case in abeyance. Even assuming that this April 16, 2013, date is the applicable

date to stop the clock from running, the AEDPA deadline of October 22, 2012, had already

passed.

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Powell703mtdtime.wpd 4

[postconviction] petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and he is not entitled to

statutory tolling under §2244(d)(2).” Id. at 413. Thus, the time between petitioner’s petition to

the California Supreme Court and its subsequent denial did not toll the limitations period.

Thus, adding 159 days to May 16, 2012, the date upon which the limitations period began

to run again, petitioner’s new deadline was October 22, 2012.

Although the Supreme Court has determined that § 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling

in appropriate cases, see Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010), petitioner has set forth no

argument showing “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland, 560 U.S. at

649 (quoting Pace, 544 U.S. at 418) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, petitioner is not

entitled to equitable tolling.

Accordingly, petitioner’s amended petition, filed May 5, 2014, is untimely.2

III. CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is GRANTED. The instant petition is

DISMISSED. The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

For the reasons set out in the discussion above, petitioner has not shown “that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________________ _________________________

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01703-RMW Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN JEROME POWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN G. SWARTHOUT et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV13-01703 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 29, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kevin Jerome Powell G-29126

P.B.S.P.

B-3-210

PO Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532-7000

Dated: May 29, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:13-cv-01703-RMW Document 32 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 5