Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01676/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01676-1/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

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 09cv1676

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED ROBERT SCALF, III,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-cv-1676-H (AJB)

ORDER DENYING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, Warden, 

Respondent.

On August 3, 2009, Fred Robert Scalf, III, (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)

On November 6, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. (Doc.

No. 6-1 at 3.) On December 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a response. (Doc. No. 8.) On February

10, 2010, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation advising denial of

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 9 at 4.) The Court set a date for any objections

to the report and recommendation to be filed no later then February 24, 2010. (Doc. No. 9 at

4.) The Court has received no objections to the report and recommendation. For the reasons

discussed below, the Court adopts the report and recommendation and denies Respondent’s

motion to dismiss. 

////

////

Case 3:09-cv-01676-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 4
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 - 09cv1676

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of

fourteen in violation of California Penal Code section 288(a). (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner

was sentenced to eight years in prison. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner appealed the conviction

claiming the sentencing court abused its discretion by denying his request for probation.

(Lodg. 1.) On May 18, 2007, the California Court of Appeal, Division One, denied the appeal.

(Lodg. 1.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. 

On May 14, 2008, Petitioner signed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and filed it

with the San Diego County Superior Court on May 23, 2008. (Lodg. 2.) On July 15, 2008,

the court denied the petition. (Lodg. 3.) On September 2, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. (Lodg. 4.) On October 16, 2008, the

court of appeal denied the petition. (Lodg. 5.) On December 3, 2008, Petitioner filed a

petition with the California Supreme Court. (Lodg. 6.) On June 10, 2009, the California

Supreme Court denied the petition. (Lodg. 7.) On July 24, 2009, Petitioner signed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus and filed it with this Court on August 3, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) 

DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs all habeas

corpus petitions filed after April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27 (1997).

AEDPA provides a one year limitation period for state prisoners to file habeas corpus

petitioners in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2006). The limitation period begins

running from the latest date of final judgment based on either the conclusion of direct review

or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (2006). The

California Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas petition is not final until thirty days after it is

filed. Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2001). The limitation period is not

counted during the time a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral

review with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)

(2006). An application is “pending” during the intervals between a lower court’s denial of a

habeas petition and Petitioner’s filing of appeal with a higher court if the filing is timely under

Case 3:09-cv-01676-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 Respondent states Petitioner constructively filed his petitions by signing them. (Doc.

No. 6-1 at 1, n. 1.) The Court agrees and uses the signing date on Petitioner’s petitions for

determining application of the mailbox rule. 

- 3 - 09cv1676

state law. Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 191 (2006). California requires petitions to be filed

in a “reasonable time.” Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 192 (2006). Thirty to sixty days is

assumed to be a reasonable time until the California Supreme Court states otherwise. Evans

v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 201 (2006); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition is deemed filed

when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the district court. Houston v. Lack,

487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001).1

 

Here, Petitioner’s habeas petition is timely because it was filed three hundred and thirty

four (334) days after the limitations period began to run. Bunney, 262 F.3d at 974; Huizar, 273

F.3d at 1222. On June 28, 2007, Petitioner’s conviction became final because the time for

filing a petition for review expired. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). (Lodg. 1.) On June 29, 2007,

the limitation period began running. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). On May 14, 2008, the

limitation period was tolled because Petitioner signed his habeas petition for review with the

San Diego County Superior Court. Huizar, 273 F.3d at 1222. (Lodg. 2.) At this point, the

limitation period had run for three hundred and twenty (320) days. Petitioner then filed habeas

petitions with appellate California courts within sixty days of each denial he received. (Lodg.

3-7.) On July 10, 2009, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition

became final. Bunney, 262 F.3d at 974. (Lodg. 7.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s case was

“pending” from May 14, 2008 until July 10, 2009, and the limitation period was tolled during

this time period. Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048. On July 24, 2009, Petitioner signed his federal

petition and it was filed with this Court on August 3, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) Fourteen (14) days

passed between the final ruling of the California Supreme Court and the filing of this petition.

Therefore, the limitation period was running for three hundred and thirty four (334) days.

Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner’s petition was timely and in compliance with the

limitation period of AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2006). 

Case 3:09-cv-01676-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv1676

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the report and recommendation and

denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Court further orders:

1. Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the petition, as well as points and

authorities in support of such answer, no later then April 2, 2010. Along with

the answer, Respondent shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on the

merits of Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice

of lodgment which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Habeas Corpus Case — To Be Sent to Clerk’s Office.” Respondent shall not

combine separate pleadings, orders, or other items into a combined lodgment

entry. Each item shall be numbered separately and sequentially. 

2. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later then May

3, 2010. Any traverse by Petitioner shall: (1) state whether Petitioner admits or

denies each allegation of fact contained in the answer; (2) be limited to facts or

arguments responsive to matters raised in the answer; and (3) not raise new

grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition. No traverse shall exceed

ten (10) pages in length absent advance leave of Court for good cause shown.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 2, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:09-cv-01676-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 03/02/10 Page 4 of 4