Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00150/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00150-3/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

27

28

- 1 - 09CV0150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUILLIE L. HARVEY, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09CV0150-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

On August 17, 2009, the Court issued an order denying as untimely Petitioner’s

request for writ of habeas corpus, without reaching the petition’s merits. In an application

dated August 27, Petitioner applied to this Court for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

A COA will issue only if Petitioner can show not only that his petition states valid

constitutional claims, but also that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s procedural ruling

debatable. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9 Cir. 2000). th

Petitioner pleaded guilty in state court to one count of second degree murder with the

use of a firearm. He then sought to withdraw his plea, which was denied. The California

Supreme Court denied his appeal on March 30, 1994. Beginning February 8, 2008, he

began attempting to pursue habeas relief in state court. On December 17, 2008, the

California Supreme Court denied his petition. 

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00150-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 09/04/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09CV0150

Petitioner then filed his petition in this Court on January 29, 2009. Because this

petition was filed over a decade late, it could only be timely if AEDPA’s time limits were

equitably tolled. 

Petitioner did not monitor his own criminal appeals in state court and therefore, he

claims, did not realize his attorney did not raise the issues he now wishes to raise. He

argues he asked his attorney for copies of court records but did not receive any. He never

explained why, having not received the records, he believed he knew what had been

presented to the state court. Nor did he provide any satisfactory explanation why he never

attempted to obtain copies of the briefing or the state appellate courts’ orders in any other

way before 2007. Even accepting his representations as true, Petitioner did not show he

pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. See

Pace v.DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 419 (2005).

Because, even accepting Petitioner’s representations as true, equitable tolling is

inappropriate under the Supreme Court’s standards, the Court finds reasonable jurists would

not find its ruling debatable. The COA is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 3, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00150-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 09/04/09 Page 2 of 2