Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01974-0/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

1

 Rosanne Campbell is substituted as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules

Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

James Michael Munro,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 02-1974 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Rosanne Campbell, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, challenges the

procedures used in a September 2000 parole suitability hearing.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent1 moves to dismiss upon the

grounds petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies and

the petition is untimely. Petitioner opposes.

September 13, 2000, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) found

petitioner unsuitable for parole. Petitioner filed an

administrative appeal and February 14, 2001, the BPT’s decision

was affirmed. Petitioner sought habeas relief in the Amador

Case 2:02-cv-01974-FCD-PAN Document 33 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

County Superior Court, which denied relief July 2, 2002, upon the

ground the petition was untimely and petitioner failed to justify

the delay. Petitioner filed a civil rights complaint in this

court September 10, 2002, which the court ultimately construed as

one for habeas corpus relief.

A one-year limitation period for seeking federal habeas

relief applies to prisoners “in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a state court,” including challenges to administrative

decisions to deny parole. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see Shelby v.

Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 2244(d) applies to

state prison administrative disciplinary decisions); see also

Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1080 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003)

(assuming one-year limitation period applies to parole board

determination). When a California prisoner challenges a decision

of the BPT, the limitation period begins to run from the date on

which the factual predicate of a claim could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence, viz., the day after a

prisoner receives notice of the denial of his administrative

appeal of the BPT’s decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); Shelby,

391 F.3d at 1066; Redd, 343 F.3d at 1082. A properly filed state

post conviction application tolls the limitation period. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A state court application is “properly

filed” when it satisfies the state’s conditions to filing. Artuz

v. Bennet, 531 U.S. 4, 11 (2000) (state procedural bars are not

“conditions to filing” but rather are “conditions to obtaining

relief”). A state’s time limits for seeking post-conviction

Case 2:02-cv-01974-FCD-PAN Document 33 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

relief are conditions to filing and so when a state court denied

post conviction relief upon the ground of untimeliness, the

application was not “properly filed,” and is not a basis for

statutory tolling. Pace v. DiGugliemo, 2005 W.L. 957194 (U.S.). 

It is not clear when, exactly, the February 14, 2001, BPT 

decision became final but that does not matter because petitioner

filed nothing that could be construed as a federal habeas

petition until September 10, 2002, almost 19 months later and he

is not entitled to statutory tolling while any “properly filed”

state habeas proceeding was pending because the state court found

his attempt to seek relief in the state court was untimely and,

therefore, not “properly filed.” 

The federal petition is untimely. Accordingly, respondent’s

November 29, 2004, motion should be granted and this action

should be dismissed as untimely.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01974-FCD-PAN Document 33 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 3