Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00513-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC HALL, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-05-0513 LKK KJM P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing,

among other things, that petitioner’s claims are time-barred based on the applicable statute of

limitations. Respondents rely on the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the

“AEDPA”), which provides a one year limitations period. The limitations period begins to 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;

Case 2:05-cv-00513-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 08/14/06 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

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is tolled while an application for collateral

review is pending in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Respondents apply the statute as

follows:

Hall alleges that he was improperly denied parole at his parole

hearings between 1982 and 2000. (Pet. at 5-11.) Hall also alleges

that between 1978 and 1980, the superior court refused to issue a

correct abstract of judgment. (Pet. at 5-11.) Hall alleges that he

concluded the state court review process for these claims on

November 12, 2003. (Pet. at 5-11.) Hall filed his federal petition

on March 16, 2005. Based on these allegations, after completing

the state court review process, Hall waited 126 days beyond the

limitations period before he filed his federal petition. Therefore,

his claims are time-barred and should be dismissed. 

Mot. at 2:3-9.

Petitioner challenges respondents’ statute of limitations argument in only one

respect. He asserts that the limitations period was not running between November 12, 2003 and

June 1, 2004 while petitioner was allowed to, and actually did, seek a writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court with respect to the California courts’ post-conviction adjudication

of the claims presented in this action. Opp’n at 18:1-19:17. However, in White v. Klitzkie, 281

F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the limitations period

applicable in federal habeas actions is not tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because a petition

for writ of certiorari concerning the denial of a state petition for post-conviction relief could be

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00513-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 08/14/06 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

filed or is actually pending. In White, the court said:

The statute of limitations is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) only for

“[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review . . . is pending.” A petition

for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is simply

not an application for state review. (Citations omitted.)

281 F.3d at 924. 

Based on a review of the record in this matter, the only basis to toll the applicable

limitations period between November 12, 2003 and the date this action was filed, March 16,

2005, is found in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973 (9th Cir.

2001). There, the Ninth Circuit found that habeas petitioners are entitled to tolling of the

limitations period for thirty days after the denial of a California Supreme Court application for

post-conviction relief. Id. at 974. Given that petitioner in this case needs more than four months

of tolling for the pending petition to have been timely filed, thirty additional days of tolling will

not save this action from dismissal. 

In light of this recommendation, the court need not reach the other arguments

presented in respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ February 27, 2006 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This case be dismissed.

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). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00513-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 08/14/06 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

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that 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: August 11, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

hall0513.157(1)

Case 2:05-cv-00513-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 4