Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02583/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02583-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCUS CAREY, AR0478, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CRAIG KOENIG, Acting Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-02583-CRB (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS PETITION AS 

UNTIMELY AND DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

(ECF No. 10) 

I. 

Petitioner, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in 

Soledad, California, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 invalidating a 

conviction and sentence from Contra Costa County Superior Court. On August 9, 2018, the court 

observed that the petition appeared untimely and ordered respondent to move to dismiss the 

petition as untimely or inform the court that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted. After seeking 

and obtaining an extension of time, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely 

and claims one through six as also procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has filed an opposition and 

respondent has filed a reply. 

II. 

On July 22, 2013, petitioner pleaded no contest to two counts of forcible lewd acts on a 

child and one count of a lewd act on a child under 14 and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. 

The superior court also imposed a restitution fine of $4,400. Petitioner did not appeal. 

On August 20, 2014, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the superior 

court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The petition was never received by the court. 

On April 30, 2015, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the superior court 

a motion to reduce his restitution fine. On May 11, 2015, the court denied the motion. 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 7
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

On April 9, 2016, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the superior court a 

second motion to reduce his restitution fine. On June 29, 2016, the court denied the motion. 

On January 19, 2017, after learning that his August 20, 2014 petition for a writ of error 

coram nobis was never received by the superior court, petitioner delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the superior court a copy of his August 20, 2014 petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis. On March 14, 2017, the court denied the petition. 

On April 9, 2017, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the superior court a 

petition for a wit of habeas corpus. On June 1, 2017, the court denied the petition but ordered that 

the minute order memorializing petitioner’s July 22, 2013 criminal judgment be amended to 

reflect that he had pleaded no contest rather than guilty. 

On July 9, 2017, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the California Court 

of Appeal a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On July 26, 2017, the court denied the petition 

with the following citations: “In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 782-799; In re Robbins (1998) 18 

Cal.4th 770, 784; People v. Duvall, (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [as to inadequate record of plea and 

sentencing]; In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682-683, disapproved on other grounds in People v. 

Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098 & fn. 7; In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 651.” 

On August 23, 2017, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the superior 

court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On September 22, 2017, the court denied the petition. 

On October 6, 2017, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the California 

Court of Appeal a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On October 20, 2017, the court denied the 

petition as follows: “Grounds 1 through 6 are repetitive of claims asserted in a prior habeas 

petition filed in this court in case No. A151835, which was denied on July 26, 2017. (In re Miller

(1941) 17 Cal.2d 734, 735.) The remainder of the petition is denied, for failure to state a prima 

facie case for relief.” 

On December 15, 2017, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to the California 

Supreme Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 24, 2018, the court denied the 

petition. 

On April 22, 2018, petitioner delivered to prison officials for mailing to this court the 

instant federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

III. 

 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 limitation on petitions for a writ of 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 2 of 7
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state 

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the 

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct 

review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was 

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and 

made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have 

been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time during 

which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is 

excluded from the one-year time limit. Id. § 2244(d)(2). 

 A state prisoner with a conviction finalized after April 24, 1996, ordinarily must file his 

federal habeas petition within one year of the date his process of direct review came to an end. 

See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled 

in part on other grounds by Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 

1998) (en banc). Here, because petitioner did not appeal his July 22, 2013 criminal judgment, his 

process of direct review came to an end on September 20, 2013, when the time for filing an appeal 

expired. See Cal. Rule of Court 8.308(a) (notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of 

criminal judgment); see also Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (California 

conviction becomes final 60 days after judgment if not appealed). Petitioner therefore had until 

September 22, 2014 to file a federal habeas petition within the one-year limitations period. See 

Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001) (calculating AEDPA’s one-year 

limitation period according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)). But the instant federal 

petition was not delivered to prison officials for mailing to this court until April 22, 2018. It is 

untimely unless the limitations period was tolled for a substantial period of time. 

A. 

 AEDPA’s one-year limitation period is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) for 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). But § 2244(d)(2) “does 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

not permit the reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended before the state petition was 

filed.” Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). Section 2244(d)(2) “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.” Rashid v. Khulmann, 991 F. Supp. 

254, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 

Respondent argues that although petitioner sought to file a state petition for a writ of error 

coram nobis on August 20, 2014, 33 days before the one-year limitations period expired on 

September 22, 2014, the petition was never received by the superior court and therefore was not 

properly filed and did not toll the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). And by the time 

petitioner properly filed an application for post-conviction relief in the superior court (his April 

30, 2015 motion to reduce his restitution fine), the limitation period had expired. But whether 

petitioner’s August 20, 2014 state petition was properly filed and tolled the limitations period 

under § 2244(d)(2) is not as straightforward as respondent suggests. 

Under the law of the circuit, the one-year limitations period is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) 

pursuant to the “mailbox rule” starting on the day the prisoner delivers his state petition to prison 

officials for forwarding to the court. See Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 

2003); Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir. 2000). The mailbox rule applies even 

where the prisoner’s petition is never received by the court so long as the prisoner “diligently 

follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of 

time.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the record shows that after 

petitioner received the superior court’s denial of his April 9, 2016 motion to reduce his restitution 

fine, he inquired about his August 20, 2014 petition for a writ of error coram nobis and learned 

that the petition was never received by the superior court. He then resubmitted his August 20, 

2014 petition to the superior court. This shows reasonable diligence on petitioner’s part. See id. 

at 1224 (noting that 21 months is not an unusually long time to wait for a court’s decision). Under 

the circumstances, the mailbox rule applies to the petition for a writ of error coram nobis petitioner 

delivered to prisoner officials for mailing to the superior court on August 20, 2014 but which the 

superior court never received, see id., and the one-year limitations period started tolling under § 

2244(d)(2) on August 20, 2014, see Stillman, 319 F.3d at 1201; Anthony, 236 F.3d at 574-75. 

But unfortunately for petitioner, his federal petition is still untimely. On August 20, 2014, 

when petitioner delivered his petition for a writ of error coram nobis to prison officials for mailing 

to the superior court, the one-year limitations period had run unabated since petitioner’s criminal 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 4 of 7
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

judgment became final on September 20, 2013 and only 33 days remained before it expired on 

September 22, 2014. Even if the one-year limitations period was tolled under § 2244(d)(2) 

without interruption from August 20, 2014 until the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s 

final state petition on March 14, 2018 (which is unlikely in view of the gaps between the various 

rounds of motions and petitions petitioner filed in the state courts), petitioner had only 33 days 

after March 14, 2018 (or until April 16, 2018) to file a timely federal petition. But petitioner did 

not deliver his federal petition to prison officials for mailing to the court (and thereby file it under 

the mailbox rule) until April 22, 2018. It is untimely. 

B. 

Petitioner asserts that his federal petition is not subject to AEDPA’s one-year limitations 

period because his sentence “was unauthorized” and that his federal petition is timely because he 

“cited previously unavailable case authority.” Opp’n (ECF No. 11) at 1. But petitioner sets forth 

no authority in support of his contention that challenging his sentence as unauthorized somehow 

excuses him from AEDPA’s one-year limitations period and the court is not aware of any such 

authority. Nor does petitioner set forth any specific allegation in support of his assertion that his 

federal petition is timely because he cited previously unavailable case authority. In fact, he 

provides no basis or support whatsoever for even an arguable claim that the one-year limitations 

period began running at a date later than the date on which his criminal judgment became final 

(i.e., September 20, 2013) because of a constitutional right “newly recognized by the Supreme 

Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). 

Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling either. The Supreme Court has made clear that 

a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely 

filing. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Petitioner makes no such showing – that he 

may have made some mistaken assumptions and/or miscalculations along the way is not a valid 

basis for equitable tolling. Cf. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (pro se 

petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting 

equitable tolling). Nor is this one of those rare cases where the petitioner has made a showing of 

actual innocence compelling that “his otherwise time-barred claims [be] heard on the merits.” Lee 

v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 

IV. 

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely (ECF 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 5 of 7
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

No. 10) is GRANTED.1 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 

appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “jurists 

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2019 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 The court need not address respondent’s additional argument that claims one through six are also 

procedurally defaulted. 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 6 of 7
7 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCUS CAREY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:18-cv-02583-CRB 

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 April 25, 2019, 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. 

Marcus Carey ID: AR-0478 

Correctional Training Facility (CTF)

P.O. Box 705 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: April 25, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:18-cv-02583-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/25/19 Page 7 of 7