Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00866/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00866-8/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

 Since Matthew Kramer is the Acting Warden of Folsom State Prison, he is substituted 1

as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON BROWN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0866 FCD PAN P

vs.

MATTHEW KRAMER, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner, without counsel, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss upon the ground the petition is untimely. 

1

Petitioner opposes.

On February 21, 2001, petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a

firearm and sentenced to 25 years to life. Cal. Pen. Code §§ 12021(a)(1), 667(b)-(i), 1170.12.

Petitioner appealed and on March 28, 2002, the appellate court affirmed. 

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. That court

denied review on June 12, 2001.

On April 5, 2002, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the trial court, which was

Case 2:05-cv-00866-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

assigned case number 02F03046. On June 10, 2002, the trial court issued an order denying the

petition in 02F03046. On November 14, 2003, petitioner filed a second habeas petition in the

trial court, which was assigned case number 03F09870. On December 22, 2003, the superior

court issued an order in case number 02F03046 finding:

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed and considered. By

operation of law, an order to show cause was deemed granted in June 2002. As

the discussion in the court’s order dated June 10, 2002, shows, the order was

improvidently granted. The OSC is recalled, and the petition is DENIED on the

basis previously stated.

Petitioner’s Lodged Documents, Document 1. Also on December 22, 2003, the trial court denied

petitioner’s second habeas petition. 

On February 6, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the

appellate court. That court summarily denied relief March 11, 2004.

On April 9, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. On March 23, 2005, the court summarily denied the writ.

On May 2, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this

court.

A one-year limitation period for seeking federal habeas relief begins to run from

the latest of the date the judgment became final on direct review, the date on which a statecreated impediment to filing is removed, the date the United States Supreme Court makes a new

rule retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review or the date on which the factual

predicate of a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). A properly filed state post conviction application tolls the statute of limitations. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In California, an application is “pending” from the time an initial

application is filed, including the intervals between a lower court decision and filing a new

petition in a higher court, until final disposition by the highest court as long as the petitioner does

not unreasonably delay between the denial of relief in a lower court and filing a new petition on

the next level. Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002). When the state court rejects a

Case 2:05-cv-00866-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

petitioner’s post-conviction application as untimely, it is not “properly filed” and petitioner is not

entitled to statutory tolling. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814 (2005);

see also Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005) (state timeliness rules are “conditions to

filing” a state-court petition for post conviction relief). But when a California court does not

state whether it considers a habeas petition timely, (and the California Supreme Court does not

give clear direction or explanation about the meaning of the term “reasonable time”), the federal

court must decide whether it was filed “within what California would consider a ‘reasonable

time.’” Evans v. Chavis, 126 S.Ct. 646, 852 (2006). The Supreme Court has suggested that 30 to

60 days, which most States provide for filing an appeal, would be reasonable in California. See

Chavis, 126 S.Ct. at 854; quoting, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. at 219. A California applicant is

entitled to interval tolling for one full round of state habeas review even if he initiates a new

round of review before the first round is complete. Delhomme v. Ramirez, 340 F.3d 817, 820

(9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioner’s conviction became final September 10, 2002. See Bowen v. Roe, 188

F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999) (judgment on direct review becomes final when the 90-day limit for

filing a petition for certiorari expires). Absent tolling, petitioner had until September 10, 2003,

to file his federal habeas petition.

Respondent asserts that petitioner’s April 5, 2002, petition in the trial court does

not toll the limitation period because it was resolved before petitioner’s conviction was final. 

On December 22, 2003, the trial court denied the April 5, 2002, petition,

explaining that an order to show cause had issued in June 2002 notwithstanding the June 10,

2002, order. Petitioner’s April 5, 2002, state post-conviction application in the trial court was

pending from the commencement of the limitation period until December 22, 2003, and

petitioner is entitled to statutory tolling for that time (468 days). Petitioner filed a petition in the

appellate court 46 days later, on February 6, 2004. The appellate court denied relief March 11,

2004, and petitioner filed in the state supreme court 29 days later, on April 9, 2004. The

Case 2:05-cv-00866-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

California Supreme Court denied the petition on March 23, 2005. 

Neither the appellate court nor the California Supreme Court stated petitioner

unreasonably delayed in filing his petitions. Respondents have not demonstrated that

California’s courts would find the intervals between petitioner’s state-court petitions to be

unreasonable under circumstances such as those presented in this case. 

Petitioner did not unreasonably delay between the denial of relief on one level and

filing a petition on the next. Petitioner therefore is entitled to statutory tolling pursuant to

Saffold from the date the limitation period commenced until one year after the California

Supreme Court denied relief March 23, 2005. Petitioner had until March 23, 2006, to file his

federal habeas petition.

The court finds petitioner’s May 5, 2005, petition is timely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s October 12, 2005, motion to dismiss be denied;

2. Respondents be directed to file an answer within thirty days from the date of

any order of the district court adopting these findings and recommendations and to include with

the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application, see Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; and

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, be due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within 20 days after service of these findings and recommendations. The

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00866-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: May 4, 2006.

\004

\briw0866.157

Case 2:05-cv-00866-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 5 of 5