Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00115/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00115-2/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

27

28

08cv0115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, etc.,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-CV-0115-L (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1. Introduction And Procedural Background.

Petitioner is a state prisoner. On April 6, 2004, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a billy

(Cal. Penal Code § 12020(a)(1)), and he admitted a prior strike

and two prison priors (Cal. Penal Code §§ 667(b)-(I), 1170.12, &

667.5(b).) (See Respondent’s Lodgment Item No. 1 at 1.) Thereafter, he was sentenced to 44 months in prison. (Id.) Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeal denied the appeal and

affirmed the judgment in an unpublished decision filed on January

28, 2005. (Id. at Exh. 1) Petitioner did not file a Petition

for Review in the California Supreme Court.

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 1 of 6
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 1

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Saffold v.

Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000).

2 08cv0115

On February 13, 2006, Petitioner constructively filed1 a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in San Diego Superior Court

(Case No. HSC 10808), contending that trial counsel and appellate

counsel were constitutionally ineffective, his Fourth Amendment

rights were violated, the prosecution engaged in misconduct, the

trial judge engaged in misconduct, and his guilty plea was not

voluntary. (See Lodgment Item No. 2.) That court denied the

petition on April 6, 2006. (Lodgment Item No. 1.) On June 24,

2006, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in the California Court of Appeal (Case No.

DO49057), raising the same claims raised in his petition filed in

the superior court. (Lodgment Item No. 3.) On September 20,

2006, that court denied the petition. (Lodgment Item No. 4.) On

March 5, 2007, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court (Case No.

S150730), raising the same claims raised in his previous state

petitions. (Lodgment Item No. 5.) On March 28, 2007, the

California Supreme Court denied the petition. (Lodgment Item No.

6.)

On January 18, 2008, Petitioner constructively filed this

federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States

District Court, contending that: 1) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective, (2) his Fourth Amendment rights were

violated, (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and (4) the

trial judge engaged in misconduct. (Petition [Dkt. No. 1] at 6-

9.) After the Court ordered the Petition dismissed without

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 6
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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) states: “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 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.”

3 08cv0115

prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent [Dkt. No. 3],

on March 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition

raising the same claims, but including additional detail. (First

Amended Petition [Dkt. No. 4].) On June 26, 2008, Respondent

filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition, contending

that it is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations set

out in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)2. [Dkt. No. 9.] Petitioner did

not file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

As discussed below, the First Amended Petition should be

dismissed with prejudice because it is time-barred.

2. The First Amended Petition Is Time-Barred Under The AEDPA.

The First Amended Petition should be dismissed. The AEDPA’s

statute of limitations applies to Petitioner’s presentation of

claims in this Court. Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283, 1286-1287 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended on denial of

rhg. and rhg. en banc, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 (1998),

overruled on other grounds in Calderon v. U.S. District Court,

163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1063 (1999). 

The conclusion of direct review of Petitioner’s conviction

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 3 of 6
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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) states: “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.”

4 08cv0115

occurred on March 9, 2005, the last day for Petitioner to file a

Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, Rules 8.264(b)(1) & 8.500(e)(Court of Appeal

decision is final 30 days after filing; petitioner has 10 days

thereafter to petition California Supreme Court for review). 

Accordingly, absent any applicable tolling, Petitioner had until

March 10, 2006 to file his federal habeas Petition. Id.; see

Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2001)(Rule 6(a),

F.R.Civ.P., governs the calculation of the 1-year statute of

limitations period of the AEDPA).

Because Petitioner filed applications for state post-conviction relief during the time that the statute of limitations would

otherwise have been running, a tolling analysis pursuant to

§ 2244(d)(2) is necessary.3 Under this analysis, the March 10,

2006 date for expiration of the one-year period within which

Petitioner could timely file his federal Petition is extended by

the number of days the statute of limitations was tolled.

As set out above, Petitioner did not constructively file an

“application for State post-conviction or other collateral

review” following the conclusion of direct review of his conviction until February 13, 2006. At that point, 341 of the 365 days

allowed by the statute of limitations had already expired. Based

on Petitioner’s filing of that petition in the California Superior Court (and his filing of the subsequent petitions raising

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 4 of 6
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 08cv0115

the same claim in the California Court of Appeal and California

Supreme Court, respectively), Petitioner is entitled to tolling

of 408 days for the period from February 13, 2006 to March 28,

2007 (the entire time during which his three petitions for writs

of habeas corpus were pending before the California courts). 

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 222-223 (2002). That tolled time

thus extended the deadline for filing a federal Petition from

March 10, 2006 to Monday April 23, 2007.

As set forth above, Petitioner did not constructively file

his original federal Petition until January 18, 2008, nine (9)

months after the statute of limitations had expired on April 23,

2007. Because the 1-year statute of limitations had already

expired when Petitioner filed the present Petition in this Court,

the Petition is time-barred.

3. Conclusion and Recommendation.

After a thorough review of the record in this matter, the

undersigned magistrate judge finds that Petitioner did not timely

file his Petition under the AEDPA. Therefore, this Court hereby

recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition be

GRANTED, the Petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that

judgment be entered accordingly.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

M. James Lorenz, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that not later than September 26, 2008, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy

on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.”

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6 08cv0115

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed not later than October 10, 2008. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of

the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00115-L-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/29/08 Page 6 of 6