Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01482-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK BRINKLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1482 WBS KJM P

vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner challenges his 1983 conviction for kidnaping for the purpose of

robbery. He alleges, among other things, that he is factually innocent and that one Jimmy Ray

Smith, now deceased, committed the crimes of which petitioner is convicted.

I. The Statute Of Limitations

One of the changes the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

made to the habeas statutes was to add a statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition:

(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–

Case 2:07-cv-01482-JLQ Document 4 Filed 11/16/07 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

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.

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

It appears that petitioner did not seek a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court following the Court of Appeal’s denial of his appeal; he lists November 21, 1985

as the day the judgment became final with the issuance of the remittitur from the Court of

Appeal. It appears that the statute of limitations expired in 1987. The current petition is not

timely.

The statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any “properly filed”

state collateral attack on the judgment. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 1999). 

However, a state collateral attack filed after the statute of limitations has expired does not revive 

the limitations period. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 601-02 (6th Cir. 2003). It appears that

petitioner’s state collateral attacks were not filed until 2006. 

The discovery of “the factual predicate” of a claim may give rise to a new

limitations period. Hasan v Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner has

submitted the declaration of Eric Colvin, who avers that he learned of Smith’s involvement in

Case 2:07-cv-01482-JLQ Document 4 Filed 11/16/07 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

3

1988 or 1989; Mr. Colvin does not say when he provided this information to petitioner. Pet.,

Ex. C; see also id., Ex. D (interview with Jimmy Lee McDowell). Petitioner will be given the

opportunity to submit information showing when he learned that Smith admitted committing the

crimes with which petitioner was charged.

Finally, petitioner claims he is innocent. In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15

(1995), the Supreme Court held that a habeas petitioner who makes “a colorable showing of

actual innocence” that would implicate a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” may be entitled to

have “otherwise barred constitutional claim[s]” considered on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has

suggested that a sufficient Schlup showing might overcome the bar of the statute of limitations. 

Majoy v. Roe, 296 F.3d 770, 775-76 (9th Cir. 2002). Ultimately, it is petitioner’s burden to

demonstrate actual innocence. Jaramillo v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The Supreme Court has recognized that this exception to the statute of limitations

is concerned with actual, as opposed to legal, innocence and must be based on reliable evidence

not presented at trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324; Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559

(1998). 

Once petitioner has presented such evidence, a court must consider the new

evidence in light of the evidence as a whole, and must determine whether in light of all the

evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147, 166 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546

U.S. 961 (2005). 

Petitioner has presented one declaration and one report of an interview, but

nothing from his trial suggesting the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence. He will be given

an opportunity to do so. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01482-JLQ Document 4 Filed 11/16/07 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner show cause why his

petition should not be dismissed for untimeliness.

2. Petitioner’s January 18, 2007 request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: November 16, 2007. 

2

tayl0336.osc

Case 2:07-cv-01482-JLQ Document 4 Filed 11/16/07 Page 4 of 4