Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01972/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01972-0/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 

2u; fl!? .. H AUf"' <\.1 20 Ii!. IL.~i 11-, f·5Ii 

,,-- -' 

~ :~-i\t~F:'.>Kr;;: 

BY ~I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RUBEN CASTELLANOZ, Civil No. 12-1972 BEN (MDD)

Petitioner, 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

v. PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR TOLLING 

UNKNOWN, Warden, [Docket No.1] 

Respondent. 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a letter asking the Court to toll the 

deadline for filing his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court is without 

jurisdiction to extend the one-yearstatuteoflimitations of28 U.S.C. §2241(d)(1)(A)-(D), which 

provides that 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 ofthe 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, ifthe 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, ifthe 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 ofthe claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). 

-1- 12cv1972 

Case 3:12-cv-01972-BEN-MDD Document 2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

The statute oflimitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition 

is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999); 

but see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that "an application is 'properly filed' 

when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] 

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings"). However, absent some 

other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is 

pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 

Petitioner has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action. Therefore, 

unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas proceedings in this Court. 

McFarlandv. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994); Calderon (Nicolaus) v. Us. Dist. Ct., 98 F.3d 1102, 

1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that "[u]nlike non-capital prisoners who initiate habeas 

proceedings by filing a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus, capital prisoners commence federal 

habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment ofcounsel"). Petitioner does not contend 

that he is a capital prisoner (that is, a prisoner under sentence of death), and there is nothing in 

the documents he has submitted which indicates that he is a capital prisoner. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's request to toll the statute oflimitations is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

" 

DATED: 

oger T. Benitez 

United States District Judge 

-2- 12cv1972 

Case 3:12-cv-01972-BEN-MDD Document 2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 2