Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00266/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00266-1/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 

17 NOV I 7 PM 3: 5 9 

.. L...C 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALEX RAY CHARFAUROS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARREN MONTGOMERY, Warden 

Respondent. 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

18 INTRODUCTION 

19 Petitioner Alex R. Charfauros, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 

20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 

21 conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case1 for offenses that occurred on or about 

22 October 27, 2010. [Doc. No. 1]. Before the Court is Respondent Warren Montgomery's 

23 Motion to Dismiss the Petition as untimely [Doc. No. 11] and petitioner's Opposition to 

24 the Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 15]. 

25 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge 

26 

27 

28 1 Case No. SCD234440. 

3: l 7-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
1 Cynthia Ann Bashant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Civil Local Rules 72.l(d) and 

2 HC.2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Based on 

3 the moving and opposing papers, and for the reasons outlined below, this Court 

4 RECOMMENDS that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED. 

5 BACKGROUND 

6 Petitioner Alex R. Charfauros is in the custody of respondent based upon a valid 

7 judgment entered on August 23, 2013, in San Diego County where a jury convicted him 

8 of fifteen criminal offenses. Petitioner was found guilty of: second degree murder of a 

9 police officer; four counts of premeditated attempted murder of a police officer; 

10 attempting to harm a police dog resulting in serious injury; four counts related to the 

11 possession or sale of methamphetamine; resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer 

12 and conspiracy to commit the same offense; conspiracy to commit an act injurious to the 

13 public health or public morals or to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of 

14 laws; possession of a firearm by a felon; and, unlawful possession of ammunition. In 

15 connection with several of the counts, the jury also found petitioner was vicariously armed 

16 with a firearm. [Doc. No. 12-1, at p. 2]. Petitioner was sentenced to prison for an 

17 indeterminate term of 85 years to life plus a determinate term of 11 years. [Id. at p. 8]. 

18 Through counsel, petitioner filed an appeal on September 23, 2013.2 [Doc. No. 12-

19 1]. The California Court of Appeal rejected petitioner's first three claims, modified the 

20 judgment to reflect corrected sentences on counts 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14, and corrected 

21 the laboratory fee. [Id. at p. 3]. As modified, the court affirmed the judgment. Id. 

22 Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus on October 15, 2014, while his direct appeal 

23 was pending. 3 The California Court of Appeal considered the habeas corpus petition at the 

24 same time as his direct appeal. Concurrent with its order modifying the judgment on direct 

25 appeal, the court filed an order denying the petition. [Doc No. 12-2]. The California 

26 

27 

28 2 People v. Charfauros, D064666 3 In Re Alex Charfauros, D066787 

2 

3: 17-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
1 Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for review on December 9, 2015. [Doc. No. 12-

2 3,p.1]. 

3 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

4 On February 10, 2017, petitioner filed a two-sentence federal petition for writ of 

5 habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 1]. In its Order dated February 16, 2017, Distrit Judge Bashant 

6 dimissed the petition without prejduce because petitioner failed to name a proper 

7 respondent, failed to state grounds for relief, and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial 

8 remedies. [Doc. No. 2]. Petitioner was instructed to file a First Amended Petition by April 

9 15, 2017 to have the case reopened. [Id.]. On April 10, 2017, petitioner filed a First 

10 Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 3]. He raises the following grounds for relief: (1) convictions 

11 of conspiracy and aiding and abetting; (2) insufficient evidence to support impermissible 

12 admission of law enforcement testimony; and, (3) reversal of the life term enhancement 

13 due to the prosecution's failure to comply with fundamental pleading requirements. [Id.]. 

14 On July 6, 2017, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss contending the First Amended 

15 Petition is time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations contained in the 

16 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDP A"). [Doc. No. 11, at p. 

17 2]. On October 27, 2017, petitioner filed a Traverse in response to the Motion to Dismiss. 

18 [Doc. No. 15, pp. 2-3]. Therein, petitioner contends he is entitled to equitable tolling based 

19 on (1) the timely filing of his original petition; and, (2) the time extension provided to 

20 petitioner by this Court to amend his original Petition. [Id. at pp. 2-3]. 

21 DISCUSSION 

22 AEDP A preserves the total exhaustion requirement, but also imposes a one-year 

23 statute of limitations on all federal habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d) & 

24 2254(b )(1 )(A). Accordingly, each claim in a habeas petition must be exhausted and 

25 presented to the federal court within the one-year period or it is forefeitted. Id. Filing a 

26 federal habeas petition does not toll the statute of limitations. A petitioner may return to 

27 state court to exhaust his claims, but most do so within the one-year timeline provided by 

28 AEDPA. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 274-75 (2005). Petitioners who fail to satisfy 

3 

3: 17-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
1 this timeline "run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for any federal review of their 

2 unexhausted claims." Id. at 275. 

3 Section 2244 ( d)( 1) of Title 28, United States Code provides a one-year limitation 

4 period for state prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The section states, 

5 in pertinent part: 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

( d)(l) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application 

for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court. The limitations 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, if the right has been newly 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. 

(2) 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 shall not be counted toward 

any period of limitation under this subsection. 

Because petitioner has neither asserted a defense under subsections (B)-(D)- of 28 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)-nor are sections (B)-(D) applicable on their face to the instant Motion 

4 

3: 17-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
1 - the Court turns to § 2244(d)(l)(A) to determine the date upon which petitioner's 

2 judgment became final. 

3 The California Supreme Court declined a petition for review on December 9, 2015. 

4 [Doc. No. 12-3, pp. l]. Petitioner's conviction did not become final, however, until March 

5 8, 2016 because an additional 90 days must be added to allow for a filing of a petition for 

6 a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. See Bowen v. Roe, 118 F .3d 1157, 

7 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the final date by which petitioner could file a petition 

8 for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court was March 8, 201 7. 

9 Petitioner filed his initial Petition on February 10, 2017, and his First Amended 

10 Petition on April 10, 2017. [Doc. No. 3]. More than one year had elapsed between then 

11 and the date on which his conviction became final on March 8, 2016.4 Thus, in the absence 

12 of statutory or equitable tolling, the First Amended Petition should be dismissed as 

13 untimely. 

14 As stated, supra, the state of limitations in AEDP A is subject to equitable tolling. 

15 Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler}, 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), 

16 overruled on other grounds by Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 

17 5540 (9th Cir. 1998). Equitable tolling requires two elements: "(1) that [a petitioner] has 

18 been pursuing rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his 

19 way" to timely filing. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Equitable tolling 

20 is infrequently granted because there must be "extraordinary circumstances beyond a 

21 prisoner's control mak[ing] it impossible to file a petition on time." Calderon, 128 F.3d at 

22 1288. The petitioner must identify "extraordinary circumstances" that were the proximate 

23 cause of his untimeliness. A mere lack of diligence will not suffice. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 

24 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). 

25 

26 

27 

28 4 As stated, supra, the initial Petition was dismissed on February 16, 2017. 

5 

3: l 7-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
1 A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling where he reasonably relies on a court order 

2 extending a habeas filing deadline beyond AEDPA'S statutory deadline. See Sossa v. Diaz, 

3 729 F.3d 1225, 1237 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Simpon v. Wetzel, 2016 WL 6432905, at *3 

4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016) ("As to extraordinary circumstances, the court acknowledges that 

5 its own orders contribute to the creation of such circumstances in this case ... [T]he orders 

6 granting those [time] extensions, particularly when coupled with the Respondents' repeated 

7 failures to oppose the extensions, are among the extraordinary circumstances that entitle 

8 Mr. Simpson to equitable tolling."). 

9 On Feburary 16, 2017, Judge Bashant identified a series ofissues warranting dismissal 

10 of the Petition without prejudice, and granted petitioner until April 15, 201 7 to file an 

11 Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 2]. Thus petitioner was given fifty-nine (59) days in which 

12 to remedy his original Petition. The one-year statute of limitations period under AEDP A 

13 ended twenty (20) days after Judge Bashant's Order was issued, on March 8, 2017. Yet, 

14 by then, petitioner was reasonably relying on the Order permiting him to file an amended 

15 petition within the additional thirty-nine (39) days granted to him by the Court. [Id.]. Thus, 

16 petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling because the Court "contribute[ d] to the creation of 

17 [the] circumstances in this case." Sossa, 729 F.3d at 1237. The First Amended Petition 

18 [Doc. No. 3] is deemed timely filed in accordance with AEDPA's one-year statute of 

19 limitations. 

20 Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that respondent's Motion to Dismiss be 

21 DENIED. [Doc. No. 11]. 

22 CONCLUSION 

23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an order (1) 

24 approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and, (2) denying respondent's 

25 Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT any party may file written objections with the 

27 District Court and serve a copy on all parties no later than 14 davs from the entry of this 

28 Order. The document should be entitled "Objections to Report and Recommendation." 

6 

3: l 7-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

2 the District Court and served on all parties no later than 30 days from the filing of the 

3 objection. The parties are advised that failure to file an objection within the specified time 

4 periods might waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the District Court's 

5 Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

6 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991). 

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

8 Dated: November 14, 2017 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. . rawford 

United States Magistrate Judge 

7 

3: l 7-cv-266-BAS-KSC 

Case 3:17-cv-00266-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7