Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00020-4/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

HAROLD PAUL MARCHAND, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0020 DFL KJM P

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the San Joaquin County Superior

Court’s requirement that he register as a sex offender on the ground that the factual predicate for

this requirement was neither charged nor found by the jury. Respondent has filed a motion to

dismiss, arguing that the petition is not timely under the AEDPA.

Petitioner was convicted on October 26, 2000. Pet. at 1. The Court of Appeal

affirmed his conviction on June 6, 2002, Lodged Document 1, and the California Supreme Court

denied his Petition for Review on August 14, 2002. Lodged Document 3. 

Petitioner did not pursue collateral review in the state court for more than twoand-a-half years, until he filed a habeas petition in San Joaquin County Superior Court on March

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00020-DFL -KJM Document 23 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 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

2

21, 2005. Lodged Document 4. This petition was denied on May 19, 2005. Lodged Document

5.

One of the changes the AEDPA made to the habeas statutes was to add a statute of

limitations for filing a habeas petition:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for

a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall 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;

(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.

(2) 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. 

A conviction is final for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations at the

expiration of the ninety day period for seeking certiorari, which in this case was November 13,

2002. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.1999). The limitations period began to run on

November 14, 2002 and expired on November 15, 2003. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (excluding the day

from which the period begins to run from the calculation of the time). The federal habeas

petition, filed January 4, 2005, is not timely, unless petitioner is entitled to tolling of the

limitations period. 

Case 2:05-cv-00020-DFL -KJM Document 23 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 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

3

The statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any “properly filed” state

collateral attack on the judgment. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 1999).

However, once the statute of limitations has lapsed, it is not revived by a petition filed after that

time. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 601-02 (6th Cir. 2003). In this case, petitioner’s state

collateral attack was filed well outside the limitations period. His federal petition is not timely. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus 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

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: December 19, 2006. 

2

marc0020.157

Case 2:05-cv-00020-DFL -KJM Document 23 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 3