Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00333/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00333-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Melvin George Coilton,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0333 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

A. K. Scribner, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner is a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas

corpus, challenging his 1998 San Joaquin County conviction of

rape, robbery, burglary and attempted murder, for which he is

serving a term of 209 years and 8 months to life imprisonment.

Respondent moves to dismiss the action as time-barred. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d).

In a prior habeas petition challenging the same conviction,

Coilton v. Lamarque, Civ. S 01-1050 FCD GGH P, the court found

petitioner’s request the California Supreme Court review his 

Case 2:05-cv-00333-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 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

appeal was denied August 9, 2000. Petitioner’s conviction became

final 90 days later, November 7, 2000, when the time to petition

the United States Supreme Court for review expired, Bowen v. Roe,

188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999), and the one-year limitation period

began.

Sixty-nine days elapsed before petitioner signed a state

habeas petition January 15, 2001, and filed it January 22, 2001,

in the Monterey County Superior Court. That petition was denied

March 23, 2001, and the limitation period clock resumed running.

Petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition, in Civ.

S 01-1051 FCD GGH P, May 29, 2001, and the court appointed

counsel June 7, 2001. That case was dismissed for failure to

exhaust state remedies on June 24, 2002. Pendency of that

petition triggered no tolling.

Petitioner filed a second state habeas petition in the San

Joaquin County Superior Court May 20, 2003, and that round of

habeas litigation ended March 17, 2004, upon the California

Supreme Court’s denial of habeas relief. 

The petition herein was filed February 22, 2005, although it

purports to have been signed July 13, 2004.

The limitation period expired 296 days after March 23, 2001,

viz., January 13, 2002, long before petitioner’s second round of

state habeas began in May 2003. 

Petitioner suggests he may be entitled to equitable tolling. 

He alleges in his petition his legal property was seized and

destroyed by prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison on

Case 2:05-cv-00333-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 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

June 18, 2000. However, he fails to explain how this seizure

caused delay in seeking habeas relief; at any rate he possessed

sufficient documentation to file a state habeas petition in

January 2001 and a federal petition in May 2001. Petitioner was

represented by a lawyer from June 2001 to June 2002; thus his bid

for tolling during that time based on lack of library access,

mental problems and conditions in segregated housing fails. 

Petitioner alleges an officer at Corcoran State Prison

confiscated and destroyed his legal property in 2002, but he

fails to show that caused delay in seeking habeas relief. 

Petitioner’s opposition to dismissal alludes to mental health

problems in 2005 and emotional upset from death of family members

in 2004 and 2005, but this fails to account for delay between

March 2001 and March 2003. Nor does petitioner explain why he

purportedly signed the petition herein in July 2004 but then

waited until February 2005 to file it.

Petitioner fails to meet his burden in opposing dismissal. 

See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir. 2002) (once

petitioner is notified his habeas petition is subject to

dismissal based on AEDPA’s limitation period and the record

indicates the petition fell outside the one-year period, he has

the burden of demonstrating that the limitation period was

sufficiently tolled).

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends respondent’s June

28, 2005, motion to dismiss be granted and this action be

dismissed as untimely.

Case 2:05-cv-00333-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 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

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 10 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00333-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4