Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01123/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01123-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRENCHIE LARON JACKSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv1123-IEG(AJB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION,

and (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

DERRICK OLLISON, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

Petitioner Frenchie Laron Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his September 8, 2000 conviction

following a guilty plea in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD 151993. Respondent

moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

On November 29, 2006, Magistrate Judge Anthony Battaglia issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. 

Petitioner has not filed an objection. 

Upon review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s R&R to be well-reasoned and

persuasive. The time period between the San Diego County Superior Court’s denial of Petitioner’s

third habeas corpus petition, on January 3, 2003, and the filing of Petitioner’s fourth habeas corpus

petition with that court on April 4, 2004, was unreasonable, such that the statute of limitations was

Case 3:06-cv-01123-IEG-AJB Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Giving Petitioner the benefit of the doubt, Magistrate Judge Battaglia found the statute of

limitations remained tolled for all of the time during which Petitioner pursued his second and third

state habeas petitions before the San Diego County Superior Court. As set forth in Carey v.

Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002), however, the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1) remains tolled only during the intervals between a lower court decision and the filing

of a new petition in a higher court, and not during the time between multiple filings in the same

court. Briggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Petitioner cannot argue

Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s statute of limitations calculations gave him too short a time period

within which to file his federal habeas corpus petition.

In addition, Petitioner’s first federal habeas corpus petition, 04cv1336-BTM(RBB), filed

after the San Diego County Superior Court’s denial of Petitioner’s fourth state habeas petition,

contained no exhausted claims. Therefore, the Court properly dismissed the petition. Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court lacks discretion to stay petition

containing only unexhausted claims); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (district

court must dismiss petition containing only unexhausted claims). The statute of limitations was

not tolled during the time the first federal petition was pending, from July 1, 2004 until January 26,

2005. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001). Because the first petition was dismissed for failure

to exhaust, this current petition may not relate back to the earlier filing date. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, there is no doubt the current habeas petition is

untimely.

- 2 - 06cv1123

not tolled. Evans v. Chavis, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 846, 854 (2006).1 Petitioner’s habeas corpus

petition was filed far beyond the one-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s Report and

Recommendation. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED,

terminating this case. Furthermore, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability

because Petitioner has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2007

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01123-IEG-AJB Document 15 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2