Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02922/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02922-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIDNEY HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-2922 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Sidney Harris, a California prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2001 conviction in the

Santa Clara County Superior Court. This matter is now before the court for consideration of

respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. The court finds that the petition was

not filed by the deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and therefore dismisses the untimely

petition. 

BACKGROUND

Sidney Harris was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of robbery, false

imprisonment, dangerous driving while fleeing from a peace officer, and being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Several sentence enhancement allegations were found true. On 

July 31, 2001, he was sentenced to 160 years to life plus a determinate term of 46 years in

state prison. 

Case 3:05-cv-02922-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Harris appealed. The California Court of Appeal reversed the false imprisonment

conviction and affirmed the remainder of the convictions in the judgment on January 10,

2003. Harris' petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on March 19,

2003. Harris did not file any state habeas petitions.

Harris' federal petition was stamped "filed" on July 19, 2005, came to the court in an

envelope post-marked July 11, 2005, and has a proof of service indicating it was mailed to

this court on July 7, 2005. 

Respondent now moves to dismiss the petition as untimely filed. Harris opposes the

motion, arguing that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on the limited law library access

at Pelican Bay and limited access to legal materials while he was in the county jail. 

DISCUSSION

A statute of limitations exists for petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state

prisoners. 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). 

The starting date of the limitations period here is the ordinary one: the date on which

the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for

seeking direct review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Harris' conviction became final on

June 17, 2003, ninety days after the petition for review was denied by the California Supreme

Court. See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002). Absent any tolling, his

federal petition had to be filed by June 17, 2004, to be timely. His federal petition was not

deemed filed until July 7, 2005, more than a year after the deadline. See Saffold v. Newland,

250 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2001) (pro se prisoner's federal habeas petition is deemed filed

Case 3:05-cv-02922-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

when prisoner delivers petition to prison authorities for mailing), vacated and remanded on

other grounds, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 122 S. Ct. 2134 (2002). 

Having determined that the presumptive deadline for filing the federal petition was

June 17, 2004, and that Harris missed it by more than a year, the next step is to determine

whether the limitations period should be statutorily tolled. The one-year limitations period

will be tolled under § 2244(d)(2) for 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Here, there is no basis for statutory tolling: 

Harris did not seek collateral relief in state court.

The final step is to determine whether equitable tolling applies. Equitable tolling of

the limitation period is available upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances beyond a

petitioner's control which prevented him from timely filing the petition. See, e.g., Calderon

v. United States District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

523 U.S. 1, and cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by

Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999). "When external forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of

diligence, account for the failure to file a timely claim, equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations may be appropriate." Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Equitable tolling will not be available in most cases because extensions of time should be

granted only if "extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible

to file a petition on time." Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). The prisoner must show that “the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ were the cause of

his untimeliness.” Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 

Harris contends he is entitled to equitable tolling for two reasons. First, he contends

that he was unable to access the law library at Pelican Bay due to various states of emergency

and modified programming that existed at the prison. Even accepting as true that Harris was

unable to access the law library and that situation supported equitable tolling, it would only

provide tolling for the time during which Harris was actually at the prison. The earliest that

Case 3:05-cv-02922-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

such tolling would have started was January 2005, because Harris did not return to state

prison until the beginning of 2005 – six months after the June 17, 2004 deadline had passed. 

See Opposition Brief filed Feb. 4, 2006 (docket # 8), p. 4. 

Second, Harris contends the limitations period should be equitably tolled during the

time he was at Santa Clara County Jail because "it wasn't possible to file a properly [sic]

Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus while he was confined in the Santa Clara County Jail

Facility. When inmates are transferred from a State Prison to a County Jail for whatever

reason, they are not allowed to take much if any property for security reasons. Therefore, I

was absent of any transcripts that was necessary to not only discover other Constitutional

issue's, but review and further research before petitioner could file his Federal Appeal." 

Opposition Brief filed Aug. 28, 2006, p. 6 (errors in source). This does not show entitlement

to equitable tolling for the time he was in the county jail or even the need for an evidentiary

hearing to develop the record. Harris' housing in the county jail did not prohibit him from

finding out about the existence of the deadline to file a federal petition: he clearly knew of

the statute of limitations because he "had informed his attorney on remand" about it and

knew that it was his (Harris') personal responsibility to get the petition filed because his

attorney told him he would not be preparing it. Opposition Brief filed Aug. 28, 2006, p. 6. 

Moreover, there is no indication of any diligence. Harris does not state that he actually made

any effort to obtain the transcripts while he was in county jail. His generalized statement that

inmates are not allowed to take "much if any property" does not state what property he was

allowed to take, does not state whether he received materials while he was in county jail, and

does not even hint that he tried to obtain the transcripts or tried to do any research even

though he knew that there was a deadline for him to file his federal habeas petition. See Roy

v. Lampert, 455 F.3d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 2006); Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d

1021, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling warranted for inmate's stay in ad-seg

because he was denied access to his legal papers despite his repeated requests for them); cf.

United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 2255 petition) (even though

petitioner did not have access to trial transcripts, the facts supporting claims which occurred

Case 3:05-cv-02922-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

at the time of his conviction could have been discovered if he “at least consult[ed] his own

memory of the trial proceedings;” because he did not do so, he did not exercise due

diligence and was not entitled to a delayed start of the limitations period under § 2255(4)). 

Harris' housing in county jail without his transcripts does not support equitable tolling of the

limitations period. 

 Harris' federal petition was deemed filed on July 7, 2004, more than a year after the

deadline for filing. The petition must be dismissed because it was not timely filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket 

# 6.) The petition is dismissed because it was not timely filed. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2006 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02922-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/28/06 Page 5 of 5