Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02731/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02731-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN L. TAYLOR, SR.,

Petitioner, 

 v.

MATT KRAMMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-2731 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS 

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and petitioner has

filed an opposition. The motion is ready for decision. 

DISCUSSION

The statute of limitations is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 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

Case 3:06-cv-02731-WHA Document 15 Filed 08/29/07 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

application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is excluded from the

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

Plaintiff contends that his plea bargain called for him to receive a fifteen-year

sentence, not the fifteen-to-life sentence the respondent contends was agreed to. His claim

here is that the plea bargain was breached when he was not released after serving fifteen years;

breach of a plea bargain can be a due process violation and a basis for habeas relief. See Santobello v.

New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). The triggering date for the statute of limitations thus was when

“the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(4). In the petition, petitioner says that he discovered he was not going to

be released after fifteen years when the fifteen years was up on June 29, 2001, and he was not

released. Pet. at Ex. G. In his opposition to the motion to dismiss he contends that he learned

of the purported breach on September 4, 2001, without explaining the difference in dates. It

does not matter, however, because he did not file his first state habeas petition until

November 19, 2004, which is more than one year after the latest date he could be said to have

discovered the factual predicate for his claim. This petition therefore is untimely. The

motion to dismiss will be granted.

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (document number 10 on the docket) is GRANTED. 

The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\TAYLOR731.MDSMSS.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-02731-WHA Document 15 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2