Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02572/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02572-1/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

The prison form for calculation Petitioner’s release date originally set the date at

October 11, 2006, but the date was changed to September 11, 2006. (Resp. Ex. C.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESTON WILLIAM BRAXTON, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.P. KANE, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2572 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the computation of his release date.

Respondent filed an answer, exhibits and a supporting memorandum. Petitioner has filed

a traverse. This order denies the petition.

BACKGROUND

In the present petition Petitioner alleges that state prison officials have computed

the time credits to which he is entitled improperly, resulting in the miscalculation of his

release date. Specifically, Petitioner maintains that he was entitled to be released on May

25, 2006. Prison officials, however, found that was not eligible for release until

September 11, 2006.1

 (Respondent’s Exh. C.) 

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/13/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Petitioner may thus currently be out of prison, but the parties have not informed the

Court of Petitioner’s incarceration status.

2

On February 25, 1996, Petitioner was convicted of first degree burglary under

California Penal Code § 459, with a 5-year sentence enhancement under California Penal

Code § 667(A). He was sentenced to a term of 13 years in state prison. The California

Department of Corrections (“CDC”) calculated his release date by adding 13 years to

December 3, 1996, the date the CDC received Petitioner. (Resp. Ex. C.) The CDC then

subtracted 412 days of credit for his time served prior to CDC custody, and 10 days of

credit for his time in CDC custody, producing a release date of October 7, 2008. (Id.) 

The good conduct credits available to Petitioner were then calculated by dividing the 4326

days Petitioner had to serve in CDC custody by five; Petitioner could earn up to 865 days

of credits, and be released on May 26, 2006, if he engaged in good behavior. (Id.) On

Jude 4, 2000, Petitioner was found guilty of engaging in mutual combat and forfeited 90

days of good time credits. (Resp. Ex. D.) Although Petitioner could have had these 90

days restored if he remained discipline-free for six months, on July 21, 2000, Petitioner

was found guilty of refusing to work. (Resp. Ex. E.) Thus, the 90 days of good time

credits were not restored, and after adding these 90 days, Petitioner’s release date was set

at September 11, 2006. (Resp. Ex. C.) 

Petitioner alleges that he pursued his administrative appeals to the third level of

review on this matter and sought state habeas corpus relief in the state courts. The

California Supreme Court summarily denied his petition on June 8, 2005.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that the petition is untimely. The Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) became law on April 24, 1996, and imposed for the

first time a statute of limitations on federal petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed by

state prisoners. Section 2244's one-year limitation period applies to all habeas petitions

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/13/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner does not argue, nor is there any indication in the record, that he is

entitled to equitable tolling. In light of the conclusion that the petition is untimely, the

Court need not reach Respondent’s alternative arguments. 

3

filed by persons in “custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” even if the

petition challenges a pertinent administrative decision rather than a state court judgment. 

Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). 

For prisoners challenging administrative decisions such as the computation of time

credits, § 2244(d)(1)(D) applies and the one-year limitations period begins to run on the

date the “factual predicate” for the claim could have been discovered by due diligence. 

Id. at 1066 (for claim for revocation of time credits, limitation period began to run the

day after petitioner received timely notice of denial of administrative appeal challenging

such revocation); Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (for claim

challenging denial of parole, limitations period began to run when parole board denied

prisoner's administrative appeal challenging denial of parole). 

Here, Petitioner’s claim is that the CDC improperly calculated his release date as

September 11, 2006. The CDC calculated such a release date on September 13, 2000.

(Resp. Ex. C.) Petitioner does not assert, nor is there any indication in the record, that

there was any delay in his access to, or his ability to discover, the CDC’s calculation

form. Thus, the “factual predicate” for Petitioner’s claim “could have been discovered

by due diligence” on September 13, 2000. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). The

limitation period expired one year later, on September 13, 2001. Although a prisoner

challenging an administrative decision does, however, receive statutory tolling under §

2244(d)(2) for the period when state habeas petitions are pending, Redd, 373 F.3d at

1084, Petitioner did not challenge the calculation of his time credits and release date in a

state habeas petition until December 2004, over three years after the limitation period

expired. (Resp. Ex. G.) Thus, the petition must be denied as untimely.2

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/13/08 Page 3 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 13, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/13/08 Page 4 of 5
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAXTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KANE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-02572 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 13, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Preston William Braxton

K31710

720 South Locust Circle

Compton, CA 90221

Dated: June 13, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/13/08 Page 5 of 5