Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01746/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01746-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH KELLY,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-01746-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 20

I. INTRODUCTION

Joseph Kelly filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely, and Mr. Kelly has 

opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the action as untimely 

because the statute of limitations deadline expired ten months before Mr. Kelly filed his habeas 

petition. 

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Kelly was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of first degree murder, and 

was found to have personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily 

injury and death. He admitted having suffered a prior prison term. On March 18, 2011, he was 

sentenced to a total term of 51 years to life in state prison. 

Before he was even sentenced, Mr. Kelly filed a habeas petition in the Alameda Superior 

Court on February 21, 2011, which was denied on March 22, 2012 because the appeal had been 

filed by then and the court file was at the court of appeal. (State Habeas Petition # 1.) Mr. Kelly 

appealed and, during the pendency of the appeal, filed two state habeas petitions. On December 

21, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction. Also on December 

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

21, 2012, the court denied Mr. Kelly‟s habeas petition (i.e., Case No. A135116). (State Habeas 

Petition # 2.) On March 27, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Mr. Kelly‟s petition for 

review. Docket No. 1-1 at 2. On August 28, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied his 

habeas petition (i.e., Case No. S211363) that had been filed on January 30, 2013. Docket No. 1-1 

at 35. (State Habeas Petition # 3.)

Mr. Kelly filed another round of state habeas petitions after his appeal finished. He filed a

habeas petition on January 14, 2014, in the Alameda County Superior Court that was denied on 

March 18, 2014. (State Habeas Petition # 4.)1 Docket No. 1-1 at 36-38. The superior court 

denied the petition on several grounds, including that it was untimely. Id. Mr. Kelly filed a 

habeas petition (i.e., Case No. A141957) in the California Court of Appeal on May 30, 2014, that 

was denied on June 19, 2014. (State Habeas Petition # 5.) Mr. Kelly filed a habeas petition (i.e., 

Case No. S222143) in the California Supreme Court on October 24, 2014, that was denied on 

January 14, 2015. (State Habeas Petition # 6.)2

Mr. Kelly filed a third round of habeas petitions in state court, which partially overlapped 

the second round. Mr. Kelly filed a habeas petition (i.e., Case No. A142960) in the California 

Court of Appeal on September 12, 2014, that was denied on October 2, 2014. (State Habeas 

Petition # 7.) Mr. Kelly filed a habeas petition (i.e., Case No. S225350) in the California Supreme 

 

1

The Alameda County Superior Court order identifies the filing date of the habeas petition as 

January 14, 2013, but the year appears to be a typographical error and should be 2014 rather than 

2013. Although neither party submitted a copy of the petition, there are several reasons 

supporting the determination that the filing date was January 14, 2014 rather than January 14, 

2013. First, the text of the order refers to a fifteen-month delay after an October 2012 letter before 

the petition was filed. See Docket No. 1-1 at 37. January 2014, rather than January 2013, is 

fifteen months after October 2012. The October 2012 date is not erroneous because it is based on 

a letter dated October 16, 2012, and that letter is in the file. Docket No. 1-3 at 2. Second, the 

superior court denied the petition without ordering briefing, which makes it much more likely that 

its decision was issued three months rather than fifteen months after the petition was filed. Third, 

Mr. Kelly‟s petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on March 27, 2013, 

and Mr. Kelly states that he filed the petition in the superior court after the denial of his petition 

for review. See Docket No. 21 at 5.

2 Mr. Kelly argues that, after the California Court of Appeal denied his habeas petition on June 19, 

2014, he sought review in the California Supreme Court, which “remanded Kelly‟s case back to 

the California Court of Appeal, which was subsequently denied on October 2, 2014.” Docket No. 

21 at 5. His exhibits do not show the existence of any remand from the California Supreme Court 

to the California Court of Appeal. Nor do the docket sheets on the California court website, 

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/.

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

Court on March 24, 2015, that was denied on July 15, 2015, with a citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal. 

4th 750, 767, 769 (1993) (successive petitions not permitted). (State Habeas Petition # 8.) 

Mr. Kelly then filed his federal habeas petition. His federal habeas petition has a proof of 

service showing that he mailed it to the court on April 9, 2015. Docket No. 1-4 at 45. The 

petition was stamped “filed” at the courthouse on April 17, 2015. Docket No. 1 at 1. Applying 

the prison mailbox rule, the Court assumes for present purposes that Mr. Kelly gave his petition to 

prison officials to mail on the date he signed the proof of service, and deems the petition to have 

been filed as of April 9, 2015. See Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(mailbox rule provides that pro se prisoner's filing of a document is deemed to have occurred 

when he gives it to prison officials to mail to the court). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposed a statute 

of limitations on petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by 

prisoners challenging noncapital 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 has 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 limitations period in this case began when the judgment became final upon “the 

expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). “[W]hen a 

petitioner fails to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, the AEDPA's 

one-year limitations period begins to run on the date the ninety-day period defined by Supreme 

Court Rule 13 expires.” Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). The California 

Supreme Court denied Mr. Kelly‟s petition for review on March 27, 2013. His conviction became 

final 90 days thereafter, on June 25, 2013, because he did not petition for writ of certiorari. See

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38, 44 (2011) (“Finality occurs when direct state appeals have been 

exhausted and a petition for writ of certiorari from this Court has become time barred or has been 

disposed of”); see also Cal. Rule of Court 8.366(b), 8.500(e). However, Mr. Kelly also had State 

Habeas Petition # 3 pending in the California Supreme Court on June 25, 2013, so the clock on his 

one-year limitations which otherwise would have started the next day (i.e., June 26, 2013) was 

paused until the California Supreme Court denied Habeas Petition # 3 on August 28, 2013. 

Mr. Kelly argues that the limitations period does not begin until the expiration of the 

period during which a defendant could file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. 

Supreme Court and he has not taken that step yet. Docket No. 21 at 7. He appears to contend that 

he can prevent the one-year limitations period from ever starting by not filing a petition for writ of 

certiorari. This view is incorrect. There is a set time limit of 90 days to file a petition for writ of 

certiorari after the California Supreme Court denies review. Even though Mr. Kelly did not 

petition for writ of certiorari, his 90-day time limit to do so expired on June 25, 2013, and at that 

point a petition for writ of certiorari became “time barred.” Greene, 132 S. Ct. at 43. 

The one-year limitations period is tolled 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). 

The limitations period, which technically started on June 26, 2013, immediately was tolled 

because of the pendency of State Habeas Petition # 3, which had been filed while the petition for 

review was pending. Once State Habeas Petition # 3 was denied on August 28, 2013, the one-year 

period resumed (with 365 days left). 

State Habeas Petition # 4 results in no statutory tolling because it was denied as untimely. 

The Alameda County Superior Court rejected State Habeas Petition # 4 as untimely (as well as on 

the merits), with a citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998), and other cases. See

Docket No. 1-1 at 37. A Robbins citation is the shorthand used by California courts to signal that 

a petition has been rejected as untimely. See Thorson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 

2007) (denial of petition with citation to Robbins at the page on which opinion discusses 

timeliness determinations was clear denial on timeliness grounds). “When a postconviction 

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

petition is untimely under state law, „that [is] the end of the matter‟ for purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (citing Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 

(2002)). As in Pace, “[b]ecause the state court rejected petitioner's [postconviction] petition as 

untimely, it was not „properly filed,‟ and he is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).” 

Id. at 417; see also Lakey v. Hickman, 633 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 2011) (no statutory tolling for 

petition rejected as untimely by California Supreme Court because petition was not “properly 

filed”; the fact that California's timeliness rule frequently requires consideration of diligence does 

not matter); Thorson, 479 F.3d at 645 (denial of petition with citation to Robbins at the page on 

which opinion discusses timeliness determinations was clear denial on timeliness grounds and 

therefore petition was neither “properly filed” nor “pending”). The Alameda County Superior 

Court‟s denial of Mr. Kelly‟s State Habeas Petition # 4 as untimely strips that petition of any 

tolling effect. He thus is not entitled to statutory tolling for the days during which that petition 

(Petition # 4) was awaiting decision in the Alameda County Superior Court. Mr. Kelly also is not 

entitled to any tolling for his later state habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal and the 

California Supreme Court during that round of petitions (i.e., State Habeas Petitions # 5 and # 6) 

because their summary denials created a presumption, unrebutted by Mr. Kelly, that those courts 

agreed with the lower court‟s determination on the timeliness question. See Curiel v. Miller, 780 

F.3d 1201, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 2015); id. at 1204 (when the California Supreme Court denies the 

petition summarily, it is presumed that court agreed with the lower court‟s determination on the 

timeliness question unless “strong evidence” rebuts this presumption). 

Since State Habeas Petitions # 4, # 5, and # 6 had no tolling effect, the one-year limitations 

period for Mr. Kelly to file his federal habeas petition continued untolled and expired on August 

28, 2014, before State Habeas Petition # 6 was even filed.

State Habeas Petitions # 6, # 7 and # 8, filed after the limitations period expired on August 

28, 2014 -- a year after Petition # 3 was denied -- resulted in no statutory tolling. Petitions filed 

after the limitations period has already expired have no tolling effect under § 2244(d)(2). See 

Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“§ 2244(d) does not permit the 

reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed,” even if the 

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 7
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

state petition was timely filed).

The one-year limitations period can be equitably tolled because § 2244(d) is not 

jurisdictional. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). „[A] litigant seeking equitable 

tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Id. at 655 (quoting 

Pace, 544 U.S. at 418; see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006). Mr. 

Kelly has not shown any reason to equitably toll the limitations period. 

Mr. Kelly‟s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on April 9, 2015 was filed more 

than seven months after the expiration of the federal habeas statute of limitations period on August 

28, 2014 (more than nineteen (19) months after State Habeas Petition # 3 was denied). The instant 

petition must therefore be dismissed as untimely. 

Mr. Kelly argues that the citation to In re Clark in the order denying State Habeas Petition 

# 8 is not an adequate and independent procedural bar. This argument misses the mark because 

Respondent does not argue that Mr. Kelly‟s federal habeas petition is procedurally defaulted; he

only argues that it is untimely. Regardless of the adequacy and independence of the Clark bar, 

State Habeas Petition # 8 was filed too late to help Mr. Kelly. 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Respondent‟s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket # 20.) This action is dismissed 

because the petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed before the expiration of the habeas 

statute of limitations period. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01746-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 7