Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02127/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02127-3/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

 Respondent has informed the court that petitioner was transferred from Mule Creek

1

State Prison to Pleasant Valley State Prison on December 1, 2009. James A. Yates is the current

warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The court will direct the Clerk of the Court to substitute

James A. Yates as the proper respondent in this action and to update petitioner’s address of

record.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES SHELDON McGEE, Jr.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-2127 MCE DAD P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES , ORDER AND 1

 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition as untimely under the applicable one-year statute of limitations.

RESPONDENT’S MOTION

In moving to dismiss, respondent provides the following chronology of events

surrounding petitioner’s conviction, state court appeals and post-conviction collateral challenges

to his judgment of conviction.

Case 2:09-cv-02127-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/26/10 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

2

On April 25, 2003, petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Yolo

County Superior Court of second degree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and failure to

register as a sex offender. On August 4, 2003, petitioner was sentenced to thirty years to life in

state prison. (Lodg. Doc. 1.)

On April 15, 2005, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate

District, reversed petitioner’s judgment of conviction on the charge of failing to register as a sex

offender and struck the related prison term enhancements. (Lodg. Doc. 2.) The judgment of

conviction was affirmed in all other respects. (Id.) No petition for review was filed on

petitioner’s behalf in the California Supreme Court.

Several years later, on January 9, 2009, petitioner filed a habeas petition with the

California Supreme Court. On June 24, 2009, that petition was denied as untimely as indicated

by the California Supreme Court’s citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998) in

denying relief. 

In moving to dismiss the pending federal petition, respondent argues that pursuant

to California Rules of Court 8.264 and 8.500 a petition for review to the California Supreme

Court must be filed within forty-days of the decision by the California Court of Appeals. 

Respondent observes that since no petition for review was filed on petitioner’s behalf, the state

court judgment became final on May 25, 2005, forty-days after the decision of the Court of

Appeals was issued. According to respondent, the statute of limitations for petitioner’s filing of

a federal habeas petition therefore began to run on May 26, 2005, and would have expired on

May 25, 2006, absent any tolling. Respondent argues that because petitioner did not file any

post-conviction collateral challenges to his conviction in state court within the one-year

limitations period, there can be no statutory tolling of the federal statute of limitations. 

Respondent also contends that because petitioner’s habeas petition filed with the California

Supreme Court was denied with a citation to Robbins, that petition was not properly filed for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Accordingly, respondent argues, the untimely state court

Case 2:09-cv-02127-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/26/10 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

3

petition cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations while it was pending before the California

Supreme Court. 

Petitioner has filed no opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss his federal

habeas petition. 

ANALYSIS

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a

one-year statute of limitations applies to a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The

period of limitation applies to all federal habeas petitions filed after the statute was enacted. 

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 322-23 (1997). Because this action was commenced in 2009,

the AEDPA period of limitation is applicable to the petition.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), the statute of limitations begins to run from the

latest of:

(A) date on which judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or that time period;

(B) date on which the impediment to filing an application is removed;

(C) date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized

by the Supreme Court; or

(D) date on which the factual predicate of the claim(s) could have been

discovered

In this case, under § 2244(d)(1)(A), petitioner’s judgment of conviction became

final on May 25, 2005, after the expiration of the forty-days during which a petition for review

could have been filed with the California Supreme Court. See California Rules of Court, Rules

8.264 (former Rule 24(b)) and 8.500 (formerly Rule 28). The statute of limitations for the filing

of an application for federal habeas relief therefore began to run on May 26, 2005, and ran

uninterrupted until it expired on May 26, 2006. Although petitioner eventually filed a state

habeas petition with the California Supreme Court, that petition was filed over 2-1/2 years after

Case 2:09-cv-02127-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/26/10 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

4

the statute of limitations for the filing of a federal petition had expired. Once the federal statute

of limitations has expired, a subsequently filed state habeas petition cannot revive the statute of

limitations and has no tolling effect. Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.) ("[W]e

hold that section 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended

before the state petition was filed."); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding

that where petitioner filed his state post-conviction relief proceeding “after the AEDPA statute of

limitations ended . . . [t]hat delay resulted in an absolute time bar . . . .”); see also Rashid v.

Khulmann, 991 F. Supp. 254, 259 (S.D. N.Y., 1998) (“The tolling provision does not . . .

“revive” the limitations period (i.e., restart the clock at zero); it can only serve to pause a clock

that has not yet fully run. Once the limitations period is expired, collateral petitions can no

longer serve to avoid a statute of limitations.”). 

Therefore, petitioner’s federal habeas petition is untimely and respondent’s 

motion to dismiss that petition should be granted. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute James A. Yates in place of

“Warden, Mule Creek State Prison,” as the respondent in this action; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change petitioner’s address of record to

Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s January 14, 2010 motion to dismiss this action as filed beyond

the one-year statute of limitations (Doc. No. 12) be granted; and

2. This action 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 twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:09-cv-02127-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/26/10 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

5

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are

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: May 25, 2010.

DAD:4

mcge2127.mtd

Case 2:09-cv-02127-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/26/10 Page 5 of 5