Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05463/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05463-2/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE GIPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-5463 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION

Lonnie Gipson, a prisoner currently in custody at the California Medical Facility in

Vacaville, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to

challenge his 2002 conviction. Now before the court for consideration is respondent's

unopposed motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred. The court finds that the petition was

timely filed and denies the motion to dismiss. The court will set a briefing schedule for the

merits of the petition.

BACKGROUND

Gipson was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of assault with a deadly

weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury. He was found to have suffered prior

felony convictions and a prior prison term. He was sentenced to a total of 17 years in prison.

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction on April 20, 2004, and the

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on July 21, 2004.

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Gipson filed two state habeas petitions. Gipson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

in the California Supreme Court on July 8, 2004, while his petition for review was pending. The

habeas petition was denied on June 8, 2005. 

On October 13, 2005, Gipson filed another habeas petition in the California Supreme

Court. It was denied with a citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993), on July 19, 2006.

The petition in this action was dated August 28, 2006, stamped “filed” September 6,

2006, and came to the court in an envelope postmarked August 30, 2006. Under the prisoner

mailbox rule, Gipson's petition is deemed filed on August 30, 2006, as there is no statement he

gave the petition to prison officials any earlier than the date on which it was mailed. See

Saffold v. Newland, 250 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2001) (pro se prisoner's federal habeas

petition is deemed filed when prisoner delivers petition to prison authorities for mailing), vacated

and remanded on other grounds, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the petition was

untimely filed. Gipson did not file an opposition to the motion. 

DISCUSSION

A. Respondent's Motion To Dismiss

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). 

The one-year limitations period will be tolled for the "time during which a properly filed

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 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

1

The Ninth Circuit held in 2002 that the statutory tolling ended thirty days after the

California Supreme Court's denial of the final habeas petition was filed because that was when

the denial became “final” under the former California Rule of Court 24. Allen v. Lewis, 295

F.3d 1046, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (reaffirming Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974

(9th Cir. 2001)). However, the rationale of Allen v. Lewis only applies to denials the California

Supreme Court filed before January 1, 2003. On January 1, 2003, the California Supreme Court

made clear that its orders denying petitions for writ of habeas corpus within its original

jurisdiction are final on filing. See Cal. Rule of Court 29.4(b)(2)(C).

3

judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The limitations period also can be

equitably tolled, but that is not necessary in this action.

The one-year limitations period for Gipson started on June 9, 2005. The limitations

period would have started on October 19, 2004, the date on which the judgment became final

after the conclusion of direct review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d

1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (direct review period includes the 90-day period during which the

petitioner could have filed a petition for writ of certiorari, regardless of whether he did so).

However, Gipson's first state habeas petition was already pending on that date and caused the

limitations period to be statutorily tolled, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), as soon as it would

otherwise have started. Once Gipson's first state habeas petition was denied by the California

Supreme Court on June 8, 2005, the statutory tolling period ended. The limitations period began

the day after Gipson's first state habeas petition was denied. Cal. Rule of Court 29.4(b)(2)(C);1

see also Lawrence v. Florida, 127 S. Ct. 1079, 1086 (2007) (petitioner does not receive

additional time for the period when he might file a petition for writ of certiorari following the

denial of habeas petition, unlike a direct appeal). The presumptive deadline for Gipson to file

his federal petition was June 9, 2006. 

 Gipson's second state habeas petition was filed on October 13, 2005, four months into the

limitations period and tolled the limitations period for the time during which it was pending, i.e.,

from October 13, 2005 through July 19, 2006. 

Respondent argues that no statutory tolling should be allowed due to the rule that a state

habeas petition is not "properly filed" for purposes of § 2244(d)(2) if it is filed after a stateimposed time limit and does not fit within any exception to that time limit. See Pace v.

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 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

4

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 498 (2005); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).

Respondent points to the California Supreme Court's citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750

(1993), as evidence that the second state habeas petition was rejected as unjustifiably delayed

under state law and therefore warrants no statutory tolling. 

The problem with respondent's argument is that the citation to Clark is ambiguous

because the California Supreme Court did not cite to any particular page in the Clark opinion

when it denied Gipson's second habeas petition. See Resp. Exh. C. Clark discussed more than

just the untimeliness procedural bar; it also discussed the problems of piecemeal and/or

repetitious habeas petitions. See Clark, 5 Cal. 4th at 767-70, 774-81. Because it cannot be

determined whether the citation to Clark in the rejection of a second habeas petition filed four

months after the denial of the first habeas petition was a denial for untimeliness as opposed to

a denial because it was piecemeal or repetitious litigation, this court does not accept respondent's

assertion that it was a rejection for untimeliness. Although the limitations period is tolled for

the time during which Gipson's second state habeas petition was on file, it is not tolled for the

time between the denial of the first state habeas petition and the filing of the second state habeas

petition in the California Supreme Court because they were not part of a single round of state

habeas review. See Delhomme v. Ramirez, 340 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2003). 

When the second state petition was denied on July 19, 2006, there was still almost eight

months left in the limitations period. Gipson filed this action on August 30, 2006, about six

weeks later and with about six months remaining in the limitations period. Gipson's federal

petition was filed within the limitations period. The motion to dismiss will be denied. 

B. Review Of The Claims In The Petition

Having determined that the petition is timely, the court now reviews the claims in the

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 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

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The petition asserts the following claims: First, Gipson alleges that his right to due

process was violated when the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by introducing false testimony

and using an unreliable witness. Second, he alleges that the trial court "erred in not finding an

inference of discrimination in the prosecution peremptory excusal of 3 African Americans" from

the jury, Petition, p. 5 (errors in source), which appears to be a claim for an equal protection

violation under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Third, Gipson alleges that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel in that his public defender failed to argue to the jury that

Wallace Gipson was a mentally incompetent witness and failed to argue that the prosecutor had

introduced false evidence. Fourth, Gipson alleges that he received ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel in that counsel failed to argue that the prosecutor used Gipson's prior

conviction and failed to argue the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, and failed to argue that the

prosecution "had coerced a mental patient to give false testimony." Petition, p. 6. Liberally

construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Docket # 6.) 

2. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before June 22, 2007, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 5 of 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

6

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent on or before July 27, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 9 Filed 05/11/07 Page 6 of 6