Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00450-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HENRY JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

D. G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05- 0450 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 14]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Currently pending before the court is Respondent’s

motion to dismiss, filed June 22, 2006. Petitioner filed an opposition to that motion on July 10,

2006.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner alleges that he was convicted of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery and

sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in 1979. Petitioner has not been granted parole. 

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 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

27

28

Petitioner applied for relief in Los Angeles Count y Superior Court on August 28, 2002, which the

court denied on October 29, 2002. Petitioner filed another action in Los Angeles Superior Court on

November 25, 2003, which the court denied on February 24, 2004. Petitioner filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus with the California Court of Appeal on November 24, 2003, which the Court

of Appeal denied on November 25, 2003. Petitioner filed a petition with the California Supreme

Court on December 22, 2003, which the court denied on February 16, 2005.

LEGAL STANDARD

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas

corpus filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063

(1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 586 th

(1997). The instant petition was filed on March 16, 2005, and thus, it is subject to the provisions of

the AEDPA. 

The AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As amended, Section 2244, subdivision

(d) reads: 

(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. 

(2) 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 under this subsection. 

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 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

27

28

In most cases, the limitation period begins running on the date that the petitioner’s direct

review became final. The AEDPA, however, is silent on how the one year limitation period affects

cases where direct review concluded before the enactment of the AEDPA, such as occurred in this

case. The Ninth Circuit has held that if a petitioner whose review ended before the enactment of the

AEDPA filed a habeas corpus petition within one year of the AEDPA’s enactment, the Court should

not dismiss the petition pursuant to § 2244(d)(1). Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283,1286 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 899 (1998); Calderon v. United States Dist.

th

Court (Kelly), 127 F.3d 782, 784 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1395 (1998). In such

th

circumstances, the limitations period would begin to run on April 25, 1996. See, Patterson v.

Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9 Cir. 2001). th

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it is

barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent contends that both of Petitioner’s claims challenge

his sentencing imposed at the time of his conviction. Therefore, argues Respondent, the statute of

limitations began running on April 25, 1996, and this petition, filed March 16, 2006, was filed nearly

nine years too late. Petitioner opposes the motion.

The court finds that Respondent’s contentions lack merit. Contrary to Respondent’s

assertion, both of Petitioner’s claims are based on events occurring well after Petitioner’s conviction

and sentencing. In his first claim, Petitioner claims that his indeterminate sentence has become

unconstitutional under the controlling comparative case analysis because he has now served more

than 26 years in prison. In his second claim, Petitioner claims that he is entitled to both prompt

term fixing and a constitutionally proportionate term as well as a separate parole release hearings. 

As with his first claim, this claim does not challenge the sentencing imposed at the time of his

conviction. Therefore, Respondent is incorrect in claiming that Petitioner was required to have

raised his claims within one year from the time the statute of limitations began running. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s motion to

dismiss be DENIED and that Respondent be ordered to respond to the petition on the merits.

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 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

27

28

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00450-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 4