Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689-8/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

The court will address petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel by separate 1

order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE SOLIS ALVAREZ, No. CIV S-05-0689-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 16). 

1

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, in violation of

California Penal Code § 269(a)(1), and sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on May 9, 2003. The

California Supreme Court denied review on July 23, 2003. Petitioner did not file any collateral

actions in state court. The instant habeas corpus petition was filed on March 22, 2005.

As respondents correctly note, a one-year limitations period applies to this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner had one year from the date his conviction became

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 34 Filed 02/07/06 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

2

final within which to file a federal habeas petition. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9th

Cir. 2001). Petitioner’s conviction became final following expiration of the 90-day period to

seek review by the United States Supreme Court. See Wixom v. Washington, 264 F.3d 894 (9th

Cir. 2001). Here, the 90-day period ended on October 21, 2003. Thus, petitioner had until

October 21, 2004, to file a federal habeas petition. Because petitioner did not file any state court

collateral actions, petitioner is not entitled to tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

The instant petition was filed on March 22, 2005 – five months late. Petitioner

has not filed any previous federal habeas petitions, and petitioner has not alleged any basis for

equitable tolling. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted;

2. The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: February 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 34 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2