Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00016/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00016-0/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

27

28 1

All further references to code sections are to the California Penal Code, unless otherwise

noted.

1 08CV0016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX CAMACHO,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-0016-BEN(LSP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS (12-1)

Felix Camacho (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, has filed a Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2254. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Petition. Petitioner has not filed an Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss. The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s Petition,

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and the lodgments presented therewith, finds that Petitioner’s Petition is barred by the statute of

limitations. Therefore, the Court recommends that Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner pled guilty to kidnapping and inflicting corporal

injury on a cohabitant [Cal. Penal Code1 §§ 207(a), 237.5(a)] He

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 10
 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

The Court gives Petitioner the benefit of the “mailbox rule” which deems that a petition is

constructively filed when it is delivered to prison officials for filing. Houston v. Lack 487 U.S.

266(1988)

2 08CV0016

admitted that he personally used a deadly weapon in the kidnapping

[§§ 12022(b)(1), 1192.7(c)(23)], inflicting great bodily injury in

the infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant [§ 12022.7(e)],

two prior serious felony convictions [§ 667(a)(1)] and two strike

priors [§667(b)-(i)]. The court denied Petitioner’s motion to

dismiss the strike priors and sentenced him to 33 years to life

imprisonment. On September 22, 2004, Petitioner’s convictions and

sentence became final.

On January 26, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 3) This Petition alleges that the trial court illegally

enhanced Petitioner’s sentence by not dismissing a prior strike. On

January 4, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied the Petition.

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 4).

On January 30, 2006, Petitioner constructively2 filed a

Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 5). This Petition contains the same claim

as noted above in Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to

the California Supreme Court. On March 28, 2006, the Superior Court

denied Petitioner’s Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 6).

On July 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a second Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 7) This Petition contains the same claim as noted above

in Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the California

Supreme Court and Petitioner’s first Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus to the San Diego Superior Court. On September 15, 2006, the

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 10
 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

3 08CV0016

San Diego Superior Court denied Petitioner’s second Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 8) On September

22, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition to Amend his second Petition

with the San Diego Superior Court. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 9) The

Superior Court did not rule on Petitioner’s Petition to Amend.

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 10) 

On September 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeal. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 11) On December 28, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied

the Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 12)

On May 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 13). On September 25, 2007, the California Supreme

Court denied the Petition. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 14).

On December 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of

Habeas Corpus with this Court.

II

PETITIONER’S PETITION IS BARRED

BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

1. The AEDPA’s One-Year Statute of Limitations.

Respondent argues that the Petition is barred by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“the AEDPA”)

statute of limitations. The provisions of the AEDPA apply to

petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in federal court after

the AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521

U.S. 320, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997). Therefore, because the

Petition was filed on December 30, 2007, the AEDPA applies to this

case.

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 10
 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 08CV0016

Prior to the enactment of the AEDPA on April 24, 1996, “state

prisoners had almost unfettered discretion in deciding when to file

a federal habeas petition.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118

U.S. 897 (1998), overruled on other grounds by Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 540 (9th Cir. 1998).

“[D]elays of more than a decade did not necessarily bar a prisoner

from seeking relief.” Id. 

With enactment of the AEDPA, a state prisoner’s time frame

for seeking federal habeas relief was dramatically limited. The

AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by, in part, adding subdivision (d),

which provides for a one-year limitation period for state prisoners

to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Section 2244(d)

states, in pertinent part:

 (d)(1) 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, 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

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 10
 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 08CV0016

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.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)

On August 13, 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner’s

convictions and sentence. Petitioner did not seek the California

Supreme Court’s review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. Petitioner’s convictions and sentence became final on September 22,

2004, 40 days after Petitioner could have sought such review by the

California Supreme Court. Smith v. Duncan 297 F.3d 809, 813 (9th Cir.

2002)

Therefore, absent tolling, Petitioner had until September 22,

2005, to file his Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus with this

Court. However, Petitioner filed several petitions for postconviction relief in the California Superior, Appellate and Supreme

Courts. The statute of limitations is tolled while a “properly

filed” state habeas corpus petition is “pending” in the state court.

Under the holding of Nino v. Galaza 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.

1999), the “statute of limitations is tolled from the time the first

state habeas petition is filed until the California Supreme Court

rejects petitioner’s final collateral challenge,” provided the

petitions were properly filed and pending during that entire time.

The statute of limitations is not tolled from the time a final

decision is issued on direct state appeal and the time the first

state collateral challenge is filed because there is no case

“pending” during that interval. Nino 183 F.3d at 1006

The meaning of the terms “properly filed” and “pending” in

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 5 of 10
 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

6 08CV0016

Nino have been clarified by the United States Supreme Court. In

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002), the Court held that the time

between denial in a lower California court and the filing of a

subsequent petition in the next higher court does not toll the

statute of limitations, if the petition is ultimately found to be

untimely. Id. at 223-226. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo 544 U.S. 408

(2005), the Court held that statutory tolling is not available for

the period a petition is under consideration, if it is dismissed as

untimely. Id. at 413

While statutory tolling may be available for intervals

between ascending filings (ie. from Superior Court, to the Court of

Appeal, to the Supreme Court), it is not available for the interval

between descending filings, unless a petitioner is attempting to

remedy a deficiency in the new filing. King v. Roe 340 F.3d 821, 823

(9th Cir. 2003) Statutory tolling is similarly unavailable for the

interval between successive filings in the same court. Dils v. Small

260 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 2001)

Petitioner’s first petition for relief after his convictions

and sentence became final was filed on January 26, 2005 with the

California Supreme Court. On January 4, 2006, the California

Supreme Court denied the Petition. From September 22, 2004 (the

date Petitioner’s convictions and sentence became final) to January

26, 2005 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus with the California Supreme Court) (126 days), the statute of

limitations was not tolled because there was no case pending during

that interval. Nino 183 F.3d at 1006 

Thereafter, on January 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the San Diego Superior Court. On March

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 6 of 10
 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

7 08CV0016

28, 2006, the San Diego Superior Court denied the Petition.

From January 4, 2006 (the date the California Supreme Court

denied Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) to January

30, 2006 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus with the San Diego Superior Court) (26 days), the statute of

limitations was not tolled because statutory tolling is unavailable

for intervals between descending filings. King 340 F.3d at 823.

Thereafter, on July 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a second

successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the San Diego

Superior Court. On September 15, 2006, the Superior Court denied

the Petition. Shortly after the Superior Court’s denial, on

September 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition to Amend the July

11, 2006 Petition. The Superior Court did not rule on the Petition

to Amend.

On September 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeal. On December

28, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

From March 28, 2006 (the date of the Superior Court’s denial

of Petitioner’s first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) to

September 17, 2006 (the date Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeal)(173 days), the

statute of limitations was not tolled because statutory tolling is

not available for intervals when a petitioner is pursuing relief on

successive filings. Dils 260 F.3d at 986.

On September 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with the California Court of Appeal. On December

28, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

On May 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 7 of 10
 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

8 08CV0016

Habeas Corpus with the California Supreme Court. On September 25,

2007, the California Supreme Court denied the Petition.

From December 28, 2006 (the date of the California Court of

Appeal’s denial of Petitioner’s Petition) to September 25, 2007 (the

date of the California Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s second

Petition to that court) (271 days), the statute of limitations was

not tolled because the California Supreme Court found the Petition

to be untimely. Carey 536 U.S. 214, Pace 544 U.S. 408 The California Supreme Court’s September 25, 2007 Order denied the Petition

with a citation to In re Clark 5 Cal. 4th 750 (1993). Clark

discusses both untimeliness and successive petitions. Id. at 767-

770, 774-781 Clark makes clear that, absent a satisfactory

explanation, all successive petitions are also untimely. “A

successive petition presenting additional claims that could have

been presented in an earlier attack on the judgment is, of necessity, a delayed petition.” Id. at 770. A reference to Clark by a

state court is routinely associated with unexplained delay. In re

Saunders 21 Cal. 4th 697, 703 (1999) and untimeliness King v.

Lamarque 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006), Vasquez v. Pliler 220

Fed. Appx. 598, 2007 WL 491137 at *1 (9th Cir. 2007).

On December 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus with this Court. From September 25, 2007 (the date

the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Petition) to

December 30, 2007 (the date Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with this Court) (96 days), the statute of

limitations was not tolled because there was no case pending during

that interval. Nino 183 F.3d at 1006

Since the statute of limitations was not tolled for a total

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 8 of 10
 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

9 08CV0016

of 692 days (126 + 26 + 173 + 271 + 96)(1 year, 9 months, 27 days),

Petitioner failed to file his Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

with this court within the one-year statute of limitations mandated

in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A).

2. Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations

The one-year statute of limitations is subject to equitable

tolling. Calderon 128 F.3d at 1288 Equitable tolling of the statute

of limitations is appropriate where a habeas petitioner shows: (1)

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace 544 U.S. at 418 

When courts assess a habeas petitioner’s argument in favor of

equitable tolling, they must conduct a “highly fact-dependent”

inquiry. Whalem/Hunt v. Early 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000),

Lott v. Mueller 304 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2002) The extraordinary

circumstances must be the “but-for and proximate cause” of the

untimely filing. Allen v. Lewis 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 2001)

In this case, Petitioner has not presented anything to the

Court to suggest that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations. Therefore, the court finds that Petitioner

has failed to establish that he is entitled to the tolling of the

statute of limitations pursuant to the doctrine of equitably

tolling. Accordingly, the Court declines to equitably toll the

statute of limitations and finds that his Petition For Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed with this Court is untimely.

 III

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Court has determined that Petitioner has failed to comply with the

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 9 of 10
 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

10 08CV0016

AEDPA’s statute of limitations and that he is not entitled to

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C.A. §

2244(d).

 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss is GRANTED.

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 16, 2008, any party to

this action 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 filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

June 30, 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. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 19, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00016-BEN-LSP Document 14 Filed 05/19/08 Page 10 of 10