Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00094-2/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

 Good cause appearing, respondent’s May 14, 2010 request to substitute Vince Cullen, 1

the Warden of San Quentin State Prison, as respondent is granted. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYLON PITCHFORD,

Petitioner, No. 2:10-cv-0094-JFM (HC)

vs.

VINCE CULLEN, 

1

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is proceeding before a United States

Magistrate Judge with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consents

filed February 2, 2010 and April 13, 2010. Respondent has moved to dismiss this action as

barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.

 Section 2244(d)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:

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 –

/////

Case 2:10-cv-00094-JFM Document 19 Filed 08/10/10 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

 The petition was signed by petitioner on May 7, 2008, and respondent acknowledges 2

that as the filing date of the petition. See Motion to Dismiss, filed May 14, 2010, at 2 n.3, citing

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

2

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 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” the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(2). 

For purposes of the statute of limitations analysis, the relevant chronology of this

case is as follows:

1. Petitioner was convicted on February 7, 2003 and sentenced on March 10,

2003. 

2. On April 19, 2004, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate

District affirmed petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. 

3. On May 7, 2008, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Tehama County Superior Court. That petition was denied on May 16, 2008. 2

/////

Case 2:10-cv-00094-JFM Document 19 Filed 08/10/10 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

 The date on which petitioner signed the petition is deemed the filing date. See footnote 3

2, supra. 

 The date on which petitioner signed the petition is deemed the filing date. See footnote 4

2, supra. 

 The date on which petitioner signed the petition is deemed the filing date. See footnote 5

2, supra. 

3

4. On June 8, 2008, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. It was denied by order filed June 3

19, 2008. 

5. On June 30, 2008, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. It was denied by order filed March 11, 2009. 4

9. On February 11, 2010, petitioner filed the instant action. 

5

Petitioner’s conviction became final on May 29, 2004, forty days after the state

court of appeal affirmed his conviction. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.

2005). The statute of limitations began to run the next day and expired one year later, on or

about May 30, 2005. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner

did not file any further action until May 7, 2008, and he did not file the instant action until 

February 11, 2010, well after the limitation period expired. Accordingly, this action is timebarred and will be dismissed. 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts, “[t]he district court must issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of

appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either

issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must

state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

/////

Case 2:10-cv-00094-JFM Document 19 Filed 08/10/10 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

4

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has

not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this action

is time-barred. Accordingly, this court will not issue a certificate of appealability.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Vince Cullen is substituted in as respondent in this action;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted;

3. This action is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and

4. This court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

DATED: August 9, 2010.

12

pitc0094.mtd

Case 2:10-cv-00094-JFM Document 19 Filed 08/10/10 Page 4 of 4