Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02505/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02505-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD BERNARD BRIGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

ROSEANNA CAMPBELL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-2505 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Gerald Bernard Briggs, a prisoner currently in custody in Mule Creek State Prison, filed

a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1996

conviction in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. This matter is now before the court for

consideration of respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. The court finds that

the petition was not filed by the deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and therefore dismisses the

petition.

BACKGROUND

Briggs was convicted of burglary and was found to have suffered prior serious felony

convictions and prior prison terms. He was sentenced in the Santa Clara County Superior Court

on July 11, 1996, to a term of 35 years to life in prison. 

Case 3:05-cv-02505-SI Document 7 Filed 01/17/06 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

27

28

2

Briggs appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction

on October 15, 1997. Briggs did not file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.

Briggs filed several habeas petitions in state court before he filed this action. His first

state habeas petition was filed no earlier than January 8, 2004 (i.e., the date it was signed), and

was denied by the Santa Clara County Superior Court on February 10, 2004. Briggs' last state

habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme Court on April 13, 2005. 

Briggs then filed this action. He dated his petition as signed on June 8, 2005. The petition

came to the court in an envelope postmarked June 10, 2005 and was stamped "Filed" on June

21, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which became

law on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for writ of

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). 

The starting date of the limitations period here is the ordinary one: the date on which the

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

review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Briggs' conviction became final on November 24,

1997, 40 days after the issuance of the California Court of Appeal's decision because he did not

petition for review in the California Supreme Court. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 812-

13 (9th Cir. 2002) (limitation period began running day after time to seek discretionary review

Case 3:05-cv-02505-SI Document 7 Filed 01/17/06 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

27

28

3

of California Court of Appeal's decision in the Supreme Court of California expired, which was

40 days after the Court of Appeal filed its opinion) (citing Cal. Rules of Court 24(a), 28(b),

45(a); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 12a). Absent any tolling, his federal petition had to be filed by

November 24, 1998, to be timely. His federal petition was not deemed filed until June 8, 2005,

more than six years after the deadline. 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, 122 S. Ct. 2134 (2002). 

Having determined that the presumptive deadline for filing the federal petition was

November 24, 1998, and that petitioner missed it by years, the next step is to determine whether

the limitations period should be statutorily tolled. The one-year limitations period will be tolled

under § 2244(d)(2) for the "time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending."

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Briggs' first state habeas petition was not filed until early January 2004,

more than five years after the limitations period had ended, so unless he is entitled to equitable

tolling for the period before the first state habeas petition was filed, the state habeas petitions

were too late to matter for statute of limitations purposes. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d

820, 823 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 924 (2003) (“section 2244(d) does not permit the

reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed,” even if

the state petition was timely filed under state law). 

The final step is to determine whether equitable tolling applies. Equitable tolling of the

limitation period is available upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances beyond a

petitioner's control which prevented him from timely filing the petition. See, e.g., Calderon v.

United States District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997) (equitable tolling will

not be available in most cases because extensions of time should only be granted if extraordinary

circumstances beyond prisoner's control make it impossible for him to file petition on time), cert.

denied, 523 U.S. 1, and cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds

Case 3:05-cv-02505-SI Document 7 Filed 01/17/06 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

27

28

4

by Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999). Briggs has not presented any argument for equitable tolling. The

limitations period will not be equitably tolled.

Briggs' federal petition was deemed filed on June 8, 2005, more than six years after the

deadline for filing. The petition must be dismissed because it was not timely filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket #6.)

The petition is dismissed because it was not timely filed. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02505-SI Document 7 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 4