Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02280/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02280-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDERSON P. THURSTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2280-LKK-GGH P

vs.

JAMES YATES, 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Introduction and Summary

The facts regarding tolling here are complicated enough such that after a text

analysis of the facts, the court will make a summary chart. However, the legal analysis of

statutory tolling is rather simply based on the fact that the first state habeas petition was filed in

the state supreme court on the last day of the AEDPA limitations period. Thus, absent equitable

tolling, in order to be timely, the federal petition had to be filed on the very day the state supreme

court petition was denied. Then, analyzed from an equitable tolling basis, although much of the

elapsed time prior to the filing of the federal petition can be equitably tolled because of the

conduct of state habeas counsel, petitioner’s desire to unnecessarily file further state petitions pro

se after he became aware of his counsel’s actions dooms his present federal petition. The motion

to dismiss on the basis of the AEDPA statute of limitations should be granted. 

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 16
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

 Petitioner filed an amended petition substituting or adding, in part, other claims, but there 1

is no “relation back” issue because the initial petition is untimely. That is, an amended petition

cannot relate back to initially filed claims which are all untimely themselves. However, for the sake

of completeness, the undersigned will finish describing the claims made in this federal case.

It is unclear within his original petition what his fifth ground for relief is; petitioner may be

seeking to allege that his habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance. Within his putative

amended petition, petitioner sets forth the claims of his original petition as his seventh through

eleventh grounds for relief, omitting only claim 4 above and adding a purported claim 11) ineffective

assistance of habeas counsel. Amended Petition (AP), pp. 66-82. As his first through sixth grounds

within the amended petition, petitioner alleges the following grounds: 1) due process violation when

state breached plea contract after petitioner performed his part of the contract; 2) trial court’s jury

instruction on Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2 with CALJIC 12.85 violated due process, substituting a

mandatory presumption for proof of the critical element of the crime; 3) trial court erred by failing

to instruct jury that traffic violations had to involve unsafe operation of a motor vehicle; 4) Cal. Veh.

Code § 2800.2 fails to give notice, in violation of due process, of the precise conduct prohibited by

the “willful and wanton disregard” element; 5) trial court erred by refusing petitioner access to juror

information to determine whether any juror had read a highly prejudicial news article on second day

of trial; 6) trial court violated due process when failing to unseal juror information after defense

counsel showed good cause. AP, pp. 27-65.

2

Background

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief in an application

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 27, 2002, petitioner was sentenced, under the three

strikes law, to a total term of 27 years to life for one count of felony evasion of police while in

pursuit (25-to-life) plus two consecutive one-year terms for prior convictions. Petition, p. 1,

Amended Petition (AP), p. 1; Exh. A, p. 7, to Motion to Dismiss (MTD). Petitioner sets forth the

following grounds within his original petition: 1) denial of due process/violation of double

jeopardy clause when trial court reneged on plea agreement without sufficient cause forcing

petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea; 2) prosecutor wrongly permitted to charge enhancements

with life-in-prison exposure after having previously agreed to four-to-eight year maximum

sentence; 3) decision to charge petitioner with multiple strikes was in retaliation for his having

exercised his constitutional rights; 4) prosecutor violated petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment 

rights by reneging on a plea deal then using confidential statements made during plea 

negotiations against petitioner at trial; 5) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.1

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 16
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

Pending before the court is respondent’s March 30, 2009 (docket # 20), motion to

dismiss the petition as barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations, to which petitioner filed an

opposition, after which respondent filed a reply. Petitioner’s response to the reply, typically not a

filing contemplated by the applicable rules, will be considered as it contains a subsequent

declaration by the same individual whose declaration is included with respondent’s reply. 

Motion to Dismiss 

Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, alleging

that the petition was not filed timely. The statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus

petitions is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1):

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ

of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of–

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

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

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

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action; 

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

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

On January 19, 2005, the California First District Court of Appeals in a combined

unpublished decision both affirmed petitioner’s 2002 conviction and denied his habeas petition. 

MTD, Exh. A. The appeal had been filed by counsel and the habeas petition was filed pro se. 

Opposition (Opp.), p. 22. A subsequent order modifying the opinion and denying rehearing (but

not changing the judgment) issued on February 17, 2005. Id. at 48-49. Petitioner’s appellate

counsel filed a petition for review in the state supreme court on February 28, 2005, which was

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 16
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

denied on May 11, 2005. MTD, Exh. B; Opp., pp. 2-3. Petitioner’s conviction became final 90

days later, as respondent contends (MTD, p. 3) and petitioner concedes (Opp., p. 8), on August 9,

2005, when the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court

expired. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999). As petitioner admits, the AEDPA statute

of limitations began to run the next day, on August 10, 2005. Opp., p. 8. Petitioner thus had one

year, or until August 9, 2006, to file a timely federal petition, absent applicable tolling. Patterson

v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9 Cir. 2001). Petitioner does not dispute that when his th

counsel filed the August 9, 2006, habeas petition, there were no days left for the filing of his

federal petition. Opp., p. 9. 

Section 2244(d)(2) provides that 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 shall not be counted toward any period of limitation. However, §

2244(d)(2) can only pause a clock not yet fully run; it cannot “revive” the limitation period once

it has run (i.e., restart the clock to zero). Thus, a state court habeas petition filed beyond the

expiration of AEDPA’s statute of limitations does not toll the limitation period under §

2244(d)(2). See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003); Jiminez v. Rice, 276

F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir.2001). 

As respondent points out, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the California Supreme Court on August 9, 2006, the last day of the AEDPA statutory limitations

period. MTD, p. 3, Exh. C. Petitioner makes clear that it was his habeas counsel who filed the

petition. Opp., pp. 9, Exh. 3, pp. 19-20. The statute was tolled until the petition’s denial, on

March 14, 2007, which denial evidently included a citation to In re: Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993),

according to the docket sheet submitted and according to petitioner himself. MTD, Exh. C;

Opp., p. 20. Respondent contends that at that point petitioner’s time for filing a federal petition

ran out, but does not make any Pace argument based on the In re: Clark citation (see below). 

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 16
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

Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988)(pro se 2

prisoner filing is dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities). Stillman v. Lamarque,

319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9 Cir. 2003)(mailbox rule applies to pro se prisoner who delivers habeas th

petition to prison officials for the court within limitations period). Petitioner makes application of

the mailbox rule particularly difficult. The petition itself is signed and dated September 21, 2008.

Petitioner’s declaration attached thereto is signed and dated September 22, 2008. Finally, there is

5

Petitioner maintains that respondent failed to inform the court that petitioner pro

se filed a petition for review and/or rehearing in the state supreme court on September 18, 2007,

within 20 days of learning, in August of 2007, from a state supreme court clerk, that his habeas

petition had been denied on March 14, 2007; the clerk informed petitioner by a letter he received

on September 20, 2007, that there would be no action taken on his rehearing petition. Opp., p. 4,

Exhs. 3-4 (see Equitable Tolling discussion below). Petitioner then states that he filed a habeas

petition in the superior court within ten days, that was “constructively filed October 10, 2007,”

alleging that his habeas counsel, a Mr. Bergerson, was ineffective for, inter alia, failing to file a

timely petition in the state supreme court, but petitioner did not maintain a copy of the petition

and had no money to obtain a copy from the superior court. Opp., pp. 5-6, Exhs. 5-7. Petitioner

faults respondent for failing to lodge that document as well as the December, 2007, denial of that

petition. Opp., p. 5. 

Respondent’s Exh. D is a docket sheet showing that petitioner filed another

habeas petition in the California First Appellate District on January 9, 2008, which petition was

denied on January 31, 2008. Petitioner avers that that petition again claimed that Bergerson was

ineffective for the delayed filing of his habeas petition in the state supreme court, which petition

filed by Bergerson claimed “the judge broke the plea contract with petitioner.” Opp., p. 6. A

final petition in the state supreme court was filed by petitioner pro se on February 21, 2008,

which petition was denied on August 13, 2008 (no citation this time noted in the docket). MTD,

Exh. E. Petitioner maintains that this petition set forth the same ineffectiveness claim regarding

his habeas counsel. Opp., p. 6. Petitioner’s original petition was filed in this court on September

29, 2008, but by application of the mailbox rule deemed filed as of September 23, 2008. 

2

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 5 of 16
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

a note addressed to the court clerk by petitioner that is signed by him and dated September 23, 2008,

wherein he states that he is mailing his exhibits to his petition “simultaneously from the prison to

your office but separately....” See Petition, p. 12. As petitioner provides no certificate of service,

the court will construe his filing as having been made on September 23, 2008. 

6

Thus, in summary:

August 9, 2005– state conviction final; AEDPA limitations period commences

August 9, 2006– First state habeas petition filed in Cal. Supreme Court on last day

 of AEDPA limitations period, i.e. no statutory tolling time remains

March 14, 2007– Denial of first state habeas petition; AEDPA limitations period

 expired

August 2007– Petitioner learns from state supreme court clerk that a state petition 

 was filed and denied March 14, 2007 

September 18, 2007– Petitioner files a rehearing request regarding first state habeas petition

 

September 20, 2007– Petitioner informed that no action would be taken on request for

 rehearing 

October 10, 2007– 2nd state habeas petition filed in Superior Court (but no record 

 herein) 

December 2007– Superior Court petition denied

January 9, 2008– 3rd state habeas petition filed in Court of Appeal

January 31, 2008– 3rd state habeas petition denied

February 21, 2008– 4th state habeas petition filed in Supreme Court

August 13, 2008– 4th state habeas petition denied

September 23, 2008– Federal petition filed under mailbox rule

Of course, even petitioner’s first state habeas petition would not count for

statutory tolling because it was not “properly filed,” as it was denied on the basis of untimeliness. 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (2005). However, respondent does not raise

this issue, and the undersigned will not raise it for him. The first state habeas petition, albeit

filed on the last day of the AEDPA limitations period, will count for statutory tolling. 

Nevertheless, when this petition was denied on March 14, 2007, petitioner had the near

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 6 of 16
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

No gap tolling would be possible from the denial of the first state supreme court petition to 3

the filing of the second Superior Court petition in that the grounds of the Superior Court petition

were entirely different from those grounds presented in the state supreme court in the first petition.

See Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2007).

7

impossible task of filing his federal petition that very day. Even if petitioner’s very belated and

ineffectual request for rehearing were to be considered part of the first habeas petition resulting

in further statutory tolling time from the initial denial, the fact remains that petitioner was

informed that no action would be taken on this request, and statutory tolling had ended as of this

time. The federal petition was untimely at the latest by September 20, 2007 unless equitable

tolling can save the petition.3

Equitable Tolling

In Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997),

overruled on other grounds, Calderon v. U.S. District Court for Cent. Dist. of CA. (Kelly), 163

F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), itself abrogated by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 123

S. Ct. 1398 (2003), the Ninth Circuit found that the statute of limitations could be equitably

tolled if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control made it impossible to file the

petition on time. “In addition, ‘[w]hen external forces, rather than a petitioner’s lack of

diligence, account for the failure to file a timely claim, equitable tolling may be appropriate.’”

Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107

(9th Cir. 1999).

Equitable tolling will not be available in most cases because tolling should only

be granted if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible for him

to file a petition on time. Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288-89. As held in Beeler, “[w]e have no doubt

that district judges will take seriously Congress’s desire to accelerate the federal habeas process,

and will only authorize extensions when this high hurdle is surmounted.” 128 F.3d at 1289. 

“Mere excusable neglect” is insufficient as an extraordinary circumstance. Miller v. New Jersey

Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616, 619 (3rd Cir. 1998). Moreover, ignorance of the law does

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 7 of 16
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

 See also Baskin v. United States, 998 F. Supp. 188 (D. Conn. 1998), wherein the court 4

applied equitable tolling where petitioner’s attorney failed to notify him of the denial of a petition

for certiorari until thirteen months after the denial was entered.

8

not constitute such extraordinary circumstances. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections,

800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In the Calderon (Beeler) case, the Court of Appeals held that the district court

properly found equitable tolling to allow Beeler more time to file his petition. Beeler’s lead

counsel withdrew after accepting employment in another state, and much of the work he left

behind was not usable by replacement counsel – a turn of events over which the court found

Beeler had no control. The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly found these

were “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. The Ninth 4

Circuit also found extraordinary circumstances in Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Kelly), supra, 163

F.3d 530. The three reasons given which independently justified tolling were: a district court

stay which prevented petitioner’s counsel from filing a habeas petition, mental incompetency

until a reasonable time after the court makes a competency determination, and the fact that

petitioner did at one time have timely habeas proceedings pending which were mistakenly

dismissed, not as a result of any doing by petitioner. Id. at 541-42. See also Corjasso v. Ayers,

278 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2002) (clerk’s unjustified rejection of a petition justified partial tolling);

Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d at 1107 (delay by prison in withdrawing funds from prisoner’s trust

account, preparing and mailing filing fee were circumstances beyond his control, qualifying him

for equitable tolling); Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1202-03 (9 Cir. 2003) (equitable th

tolling permitted where litigation coordinator broke a promise to petitioner’s counsel to return a

signed petition for timely filing); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9 Cir. 2003) (sufficiently

th

egregious misconduct by counsel, such as wholly deficient performance, may justify equitable

tolling). 

\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 8 of 16
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

9

Conversely, in U.S. v. Van Poyck, 980 F. Supp. 1108, 1110-11 ( C.D. Cal. 1997),

the court found that a petitioner’s circumstances were not extraordinary in the following

circumstances: inability to obtain transcripts from court reporters, and general prison lockdowns

preventing the prisoner’s access to the library and a typewriter which were necessary to his

motion. See also Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9 Cir. 1988) (reliance on th

incompetence of jailhouse lawyer not sufficient to justify cause to excuse procedural default);

Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5 Cir. 1999) (prisoner’s unfamiliarity of law did not toll th

statute); Eisermann v. Penarosa, 33 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1273 (D. Haw. 1999) (lack of legal

expertise does not qualify prisoner for equitable tolling); Henderson v. Johnson, 1 F.Supp.2d

650, 656 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (same); Fadayiro v. United States, 30 F.Supp.2d 772, 779-80 (D.N.J.

1998) (delay in receipt of transcripts does not justify equitable tolling). 

A habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving that equitable tolling should apply

to avoid dismissal of an untimely petition. Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.

2002). “Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two

elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1814;

Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9 Cir. 2009); see also, see also, Chaffer v. Prosper, __ th

F.3d __, 2010 WL 157488 *2 (9 Cir. Jan. 19, 2010). “The petitioner must additionally show th

that ‘the extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness’...and that the

‘extraordinary circumstances ma[de] it impossible to file a petition on time.’” Ramirez, supra,

(internal citations omitted). “Equitable tolling is unavailable in most cases,” and is only

appropriate “if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to

file a petition on time.” Miranda, supra, at 1066 (internal quotations/citations omitted [emphasis

added in Miranda]). A petitioner must reach a “very high” threshold “to trigger equitable tolling

[under AEDPA]...lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Id. 

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 9 of 16
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

To the extent that petitioner intended his opposition to be a declaration in opposition, it is 5

defective for petitioner’s failure to sign and date it. See Opp., p. 7. He also failed to sign his

opposition argument. Opp., p. 11.

10

Petitioner claims entitlement to equitable tolling due to his being “constantly

diligent” in efforts to file a timely petition in this court which extraordinary circumstances

prevented. Opposition (Opp.), p. 1. In the same month petitioner’s petition for review was

denied by the state supreme court, May of 2005, petitioner maintains he mailed his transcripts to

an attorney, Donald Bergerson, who had agreed to prepare petitioner’s habeas claims and file

them in the California Supreme Court. Opp., p. 2. According to petitioner, the attorney had told 5

him he needed the transcripts to prepare the petition, but petitioner received no acknowledgment

that the transcripts had been received. Id. The next month, in June of 2005, petitioner states that

he began to write and phone Bergerson to determine whether his state habeas petition had yet

been filed, but received no response to his letters and was unable to penetrate a block on

Bergerson’s telephone preventing inmates from calling him. Id. Petitioner indicates that he

wrote a friend, Darlynn Bondurant, asking her to phone Bergerson to find out whether Bergerson

had filed a petition; while petitioner does not provide the date for his correspondence to her,

petitioner includes what appears to be a copy of her response to him (although she identifies

herself as “Kanizah” at the end of the letter), dated August 22, 2007, and he confirms that he

received her reply in August of 2007. Opp., p. 3, Exhs. 1-2. Within the letter, his friend informs

petitioner that Bergerson said that his writ had been denied. Opp., Exh. 1. Petitioner states that

he then wrote Bergerson again for a copy of his petition and the return of his transcripts but no

response was forthcoming. Opp., p. 4. Petitioner relates that “intermittently, from June, 2005, to

August 2007,” he wrote the state supreme court asking whether Bergerson had filed a habeas

petition on his behalf. Id. Petitioner maintains that he finally received a letter from the state

supreme court clerk, as noted earlier, informing him that Bergerson had filed a habeas petition

for petitioner and that it was denied on March 14, 2007. Id. At Exh. 3 to his Opp., petitioner

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 10 of 16
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

 Petitioner evidently filed his state court of appeal petition without benefit of his superior 6

court petition as he states that he failed to retain a copy of the lower court petition and twice

unsuccessfully sought to have a copy sent to him. Opp., p. 6, Exhs. 6-7.

11

includes a copy of his petition for re-hearing to the state supreme court, which as noted, he

indicates that he filed within 20 days of learning that his habeas petition had been denied on

March 14, 2007. That petition is stamped (not very legibly) as having been received on

September 18, 2007. Opp., p. 4, Exh. 3. Once he received the September 20, 2007, response

indicating that there would be no action on his petition for re-hearing (received on September 18,

2007) of the petition denied on March 14, 2007, petitioner then subsequently, within ten days,

filed his habeas petition in Solano County Superior Court (the one he indicates was

“constructively filed on October 10, 2007”), to which he states that he attached the court clerk’s

August, 2007, letter informing him of the denial of his habeas petition in March of 2007. Opp,

pp. 4-5, Exh. 4. Petitioner includes a copy of a letter from the Solano County Superior Court

acknowledging the filing of his habeas petition in that court signed by him on October 10, 2007,

and filed there on October 16, 2007. Opp., Exh. 5. Petitioner asserts that he attached a copy of

the December, 2007, denial of this petition to the January 9, 2008, petition that he filed in the

state court of appeals. Opp., pp. 5-6. Petitioner then goes on to confirm the January 31, 2008, 6

denial by the California Court of Appeal, the February 21, 2008, filing of his petition with the

claim of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel in the California Supreme Court and the August

13, 2008, denial of same. Opp., pp. 6-7. Petitioner notes that he filed the instant petition (at least

the original petition) in this court less than a month and a half later (Opp., p. 7), which the court

has construed as having been filed on September 23, 2008.

There are somewhat dueling declarations submitted by petitioner’s state court

habeas counsel. In his declaration attached to the reply, Mr. Bergerson, while stating that he “at

no relevant time ‘refused’” to communicate with petitioner, emphasizes that “our communication

was seriously disrupted during a crucial interval,” arising from the unexplained fact that the

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 11 of 16
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

 Petitioner states, in his verified amended petition, that when he received a copy of the state 7

court petition from the state supreme court clerk when he was informed of the March 14, 2007,

denial, in August of 2007, that the proof of service attached thereto states that he was mailed a copy

of the August 9, 2006, petition. AP, pp. 6-7. However, he insists that he never received a copy at

that time and believes that a review of his mail log would confirm this. Id., at 7. Moreover, in

neither of his declarations, does Mr. Bergerson affirm that he provided a copy of the subject petition

to him at any time. 

12

carrier which handled telephone calls placed from petitioner’s prison “placed a ‘block’ on my

line.” Reply, Bergerson Declaration (Dec.) I, ¶ 5. Bergerson states parenthetically that he is

informed that such blocks “are... a frequent problem for defense lawyers.” Id. The declarant

goes on to state:

Mr. Thurston and I were able to circumvent the block to a limited

extent by the use of “three way” calls, but this was never an

adequate substitute for readily available direct telephone service. 

Letters are too slow, rigid and cumbersome for the give-and-take

required in complicated cases such as Mr. Thurston’s habeas, and

as such, the interruption of telephone service was, as a practical

matter, tantamount to a complete blockage of communication. 

Reply, Bergerson Dec. I, ¶ 5. 

Thus, Mr. Bergerson at least implicitly acknowledges that he did not write

petitioner to keep him informed about the status of his petition and, although petitioner does not

mention any three-way calling communication, his habeas counsel also finds deficient the lack of

direct phone contact. Further, Bergerson also acknowledges that while he filed the petition for

petitioner on August 9, 2006, and that it was denied on March 14, 2007, he did not communicate

this by phone, correspondence or in person (apparently, either the filing or the denial), stating

that while he (rather vaguely) recalled “informing one or more of Mr. Thurston’s friends or

family about,” presumably, the denial, “I did not write to inform Mr. Thurston.” Reply,

Bergerson Dec. I, ¶ 6. He further declares that petitioner’s “assertion that he was unaware of the 7

denial is, therefore, credible.” Id. Petitioner declares, in his verified amended petition, that the

first “personal communication” he had with Bergerson after he took petitioner’s case in May of

2005, was not until November, 2008, when they finally had telephone contact. AP, p. 7. 

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 12 of 16
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

13

Petitioner further declares that he did not receive his case file back from Bergerson until June,

2008. AP, p. 8. Mr. Bergerson, in a footnote to his supplemental declaration, confirms the

obvious point that petitioner did not have the case file while he, Bergerson, had it, but he

confusingly states that at the time he offered to return it to petitioner, at a point “significantly

later than the timeframe at issue in the instant litigation,” petitioner stated that he had it. Surreply, Bergerson Dec. II, n. 1. The court will accept petitioner’s declaration that he did not have

his case file, from whatever source, until June of 2008. 

Where Bergerson had initially declared that he received the relevant records for

the petition from petitioner’s appellate counsel, Marylou Hillberg (Reply, Bergerson Dec. I, ¶ 4),

in his second, or supplemental, declaration attached to petitioner’s response to the reply (Surreply), he states that after having received a phone call from petitioner who referenced an

exchange of letters which indicated that Ms. Hillberg had actually mailed the case file to

petitioner, Bergerson has no reason to doubt that it was actually petitioner who sent it to him. 

Sur-reply, Bergerson Dec. II, ¶ 2. Mr. Bergerson also reiterates that he failed to communicate

the fact of the denial of the petition he had filed for petitioner from the date of denial until the

point at which petitioner learned of it. Sur-reply, Bergerson Dec. II, ¶ 3. It, in fact, appears that

Bergerson at no relevant point communicated this to petitioner directly. 

There is no constitutional right to habeas counsel. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 755-757, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2568 (1991), citing, inter alia, the holding of Pennsylvania v.

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557, 107 S. Ct. 1990, 1994 (1987) (no constitutional right to appointed

counsel in state post-conviction proceedings). Moreover, respondent is correct that mere attorney

negligence does not justify equitable tolling (Reply, p. 2), as noted above. Miranda v. Castro,

supra, at 1068, quoting Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9 Cir. 2001) (“attorney’s th

‘miscalculation of the limitations period... and ...negligence in general do not constitute

extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling’”). It is also the case that his

counsel states expressly that he agreed to file petitioner’s initial state supreme court petition and

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 13 of 16
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

14

petitioner does not indicate that Mr. Bergerson was to file his federal petition as well. Reply,

Bergerson Dec. I, ¶ 3. However, at least for the period up to and including the time at which

petitioner was informed in August of 2007, that a petition had been filed by Bergerson and it had

been denied on March 14, 2007, the lack of communication from his counsel might arguably rise

to the level of egregious conduct afforded equitable tolling under Spitsyn, supra, at 801, although

that case is distinguishable in that counsel in Spitsyn was hired to file a federal, not state, habeas

petition and, also unlike counsel herein, he failed to file any petition at all. The cases are similar

in that petitioner herein also appears to have made reasonably diligent efforts to contact his

counsel, who essentially remained incommunicado. The court, however, need not determine

petitioner’s entitlement to equitable tolling, at least up until the date upon which he was finally

informed by the state supreme court clerk of the denial of the state supreme court habeas filed on

his behalf, on the basis that his counsel’s lack of communication rose to the Spitsyn level

because the Ninth Circuit has determined that “a prisoner’s lack of knowledge that the state

courts have reached a final resolution of his case can provide grounds for equitable tolling if the

prisoner has acted diligently in the matter.” Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9 Cir. 2009). th

The court does not agree with respondent that the indirect communication from petitioner’s

friend with regard to what Bergerson may have told her would be the point at which petitioner

was made sufficiently aware but should rather date from the state supreme court clerk’s response. 

However, it appears that the dates of these two events occurred fairly closely in time, as both

happened in August, 2007, and petitioner does not provide a copy of the letter with the date upon

which he was informed by the state supreme court clerk. Petitioner has maintained that he

attached a copy of it to his petition to Solano County Superior Court, but respondent, which is

tasked with lodging the relevant records has failed to lodge that document. Therefore, the court

will grant petitioner the greatest latitude and deem that he was informed by the clerk on August

31, 2007. With his sur-reply, petitioner attaches a copy of a letter from his appellate counsel,

dated May 24, 2005. Sur-reply, Exh. 2. Within that letter, petitioner is informed, inter alia, of

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 14 of 16
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

15

the need to exhaust any additional claims, other than those raised on direct appeal, through the

state supreme court before proceeding on a federal habeas petition, but Ms. Hillberg also

thoroughly informed him therein of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations. Id. In speaking

of a hypothetical state habeas petition, she states that while the one-year deadline will be tolled

until there is a state supreme court decision on any habeas claim that he should not delay in filing

a state habeas petition even though there is no actual deadline for doing so “because, if you let

too much time go by, the court may refuse to hear the petition due to inexcusable delay.” Id.

Granting petitioner equitable tolling through August 31, 2007, still leaves a gap of

389 days, or more than a year before the instant petition was filed. Even if, under Spitsyn, the

court further finds petitioner should be granted equitable tolling until June 30, 2008, the last day

of the month during which petitioner states that he received his case file back from Bergerson,

that still leaves a gap of 85 days. Had petitioner made diligent efforts at that point at which he

learned that his state supreme court habeas petition had been denied to file his federal petition,

for example, within a month or so of having affirmatively and expressly learned of the denial, or

even if he had done so within a month of having his case file returned, the court could at least

arguably extend equitable tolling for petitioner to either of those points, given that his counsel

had delayed until the last day of the expiration of AEDPA filing deadline to file the state court

petition. But petitioner commenced not only a petition for re-hearing, but thereafter began again

in the lower state court on a new round of habeas petitions. That he may have been doing so

because he believed he could not proceed on the claims in this court due to procedural

deficiencies he believed kept the state supreme court from reaching the merits of his claims in

that court and that he may have diligent in pursuing that path, especially in light of the fact that

he could believe himself to have been ill-served by his state court habeas counsel (he focuses in

his petition for review/re-hearing in the state supreme court on the In re Clark, supra, citation in

the petition denial for his conclusion that the merits were not reached due to procedural

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 15 of 16
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

 He also therein explains that he could not have filed his re-hearing petition sooner due to 8

his counsel’s failure to keep him apprised of the date of filing or denial of his petition. Opp., Exh.

3. 

Although it is not dispositive of the timeliness issue, it does not help petitioner’s case that 9

the round of state court habeas petitions that he filed pro se, in raising a claim for ineffective

assistance of habeas counsel, simply did not raise a constitutional issue.

16

deficiencies which he ascribes to his counsel’s failings ) simply does not warrant equitable 8

tolling of the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations beyond a certain point in this court. 

Ignorance of the law, as stated above, does not warrant equitable tolling. Hughes v. Idaho State

Bd. of Corrections, supra, at 909. And, in this instance, petitioner appears to have been fairly

well-informed as to the deadline and could not reasonably presume that he had carte blanche in

this court to commence a new round of state court habeas petitions long after the statutory

AEDPA deadline had passed.9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to

dismiss as barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations, filed on March 30, 2009 (docket # 20), be

granted.

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

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 fourteen 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: 01/28/2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

thur2280.mtd

Case 2:08-cv-02280-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/29/10 Page 16 of 16