Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01926/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01926-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 15cv1926 DMS (MDD)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND (2) DISMISSING

PETITION

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin’s Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the present

habeas corpus petition as untimely. There are no objections to the R&R. For the

reasons set forth below, this Court adopts in part and rejects in part the R&R, and

dismisses the petition. 

I.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is

challenging the California Department of Corrections’s calculation of Petitioner’s

earliest possible release date. Respondent asserts the Petition is untimely, and should

be dismissed. Magistrate Judge Dembin agrees with Respondent, and recommends the

Court dismiss the Petition as untimely. 

- 1 - 15cv1926

Case 3:15-cv-01926-DMS-MDD Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

A. Standard of Review

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are

set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2005). The district court

must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection

is made[,]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2005). 

In this case, there are no objections to the R&R. Based on this Court’s review,

the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition is untimely and must be

dismissed. The Court agrees that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitation. The Court also agrees that statutory tolling does not save the

Petition, but for different reasons set out below. 

B. Statute of Limitations

AEDPA sets out a one-year period of limitations for state habeas corpus petitions.

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1). It provides:

The limitation period shall run from the latest of B

(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;

(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). 

Here, the Magistrate Judge found Petitioner’s statute of limitations began to run

on March 7, 2013, which is when Petitioner was informed that he was only eligible for

- 2 - 15cv1926

Case 3:15-cv-01926-DMS-MDD Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

twenty percent time-served credit for his possession sentence. (R&R at 5.) Petitioner

therefore had until March 7, 2014, to file his federal petition. 

Petitioner did not file his federal petition by that date. Instead, on October 18,

2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in Imperial County Superior Court. (See Docket

No. 1 at 20.)1

 By that date, 224 days had expired from Petitioner’s one-year statute of

limitations. While that petition was pending, Petitioner’s statute of limitations was

tolled. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2).2

 The superior court denied that petition on

November 7, 2013. 

The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner was entitled to statutory tolling between

the time the superior court denied the petition on November 7, 2013, and January 22,

2014, which is when Petitioner filed his next habeas petition in the California Court of

Appeal. (R&R at 12.) However, this Court disagrees with that assessment as the

second petition was filed more than 60 days after the first petition was denied. See

Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Stewart v. Beard, ___ U.S.

___, 135 S.Ct. 341 (2014) (discussing Supreme Court’s “thirty-to-sixty-day benchmark

for California’s ‘reasonable time’ requirement”). That delay took an additional 74 days

off Petitioner’s one-year statute of limitation, which when combined with the previous

224 days, amounted to a total of 298 days that had expired from Petitioner’s one-year

statute of limitation.

Petitioner’s statute of limitation was tolled while his habeas petition was pending

before the California Court of Appeal, but it restarted when the court denied that

petition on February 11, 2014. On that date, Petitioner had 67 days remaining, or until

/ / /

/ / /

1

 The page number cited here is the page number assigned by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

2

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244 states: “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 shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

- 3 - 15cv1926

Case 3:15-cv-01926-DMS-MDD Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

27

28

April 21, 2014,3 to file his federal habeas petition. He did not do so, and thus his statute

of limitation expired, rendering the present petition untimely.4

 

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

With the exception of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of statutory tolling, the

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings, specifically, that Petitioner is not

entitled to equitable tolling and that the Petition is untimely. Accordingly, the Court

dismisses the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly, and close

this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2016

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

3

 The statute of limitation actually expired on April 20, 2014, but since that was a Sunday, Petitioner had until April 21, 2014, to file his federal habeas petition. 

4

 In light of this finding, the Court declines to address whether Petitioner is

entitled to statutory tolling during the time his third habeas petition was pending before the California Supreme Court. That petition was not filed until June 10, 2014, by which time Petitioner’s statute of limitation had already expired. 

- 4 - 15cv1926

Case 3:15-cv-01926-DMS-MDD Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4