Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01642/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01642-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD H. CAREY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1642 MCE KJM P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden, ORDER AND

Respondent, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The petition contains eight grounds. Four of these challenge the March 9, 2006

denial of parole; four challenge petitioner’s 1995 Sonora County conviction for mayhem. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS Document 4 Filed 12/05/07 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

2

The habeas statutes contain a statute of limitations for filing petitions:

(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 of due

diligence.

Petitioner’s conviction was final before the 1996 enactment of the AEDPA, so

the statute of limitations as to his challenges to that conviction expired April 23, 1997, absent

any tolling. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 1999).

The statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed state

collateral attack on the judgment. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Petitioner notes that he filed a state habeas petition in the superior court on January 14, 1998,

after the statute of limitations expired. This petition did not revive the statute as to the claims

relating to petitioner’s conviction. Similarly, his later petitions, filed in the state superior court,

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007, challenging both the parole proceedings

and his conviction do not revive the statute of limitations as to the attacks on his conviction. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS Document 4 Filed 12/05/07 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

1

 Both the superior court and the Court of Appeal found that the attacks on the

underlying conviction were not timely, among other things. 

2

 If respondent agrees that the transcript attached as an exhibit to the petition is complete

and correct, he need not provide a second copy to the court, but may simply note his acceptance

of this transcript in his answer. 

3

Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 601-02 (6th Cir. 2003); Pet., Ex. H (denials).1

 Accordingly,

these claims are not cognizable in this action. 

However, since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights contained in grounds one through four is proved, respondents will be

directed to file a response to those portions of petitioner’s habeas petition.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Respondents are directed to file a response to grounds one through four of

petitioner’s habeas petition within sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other

documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases. Because this petition challenges a denial of parole, the relevant documents should

include the transcript of the transcript of the March 9, 2006 parole hearing2 and any documents,

reports, exhibits or letters considered by the panel;

3. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any,

shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer;

4. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days

thereafter; and

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS Document 4 Filed 12/05/07 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

4

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that claims four through eight of the petition

be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

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

DATED: December 4, 2007. 

2

care1642.100+56(8-10)

Case 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS Document 4 Filed 12/05/07 Page 4 of 4