Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00972/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00972-3/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

- 1 - 08cv0972

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ORLANDO GUNN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv0972-LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

J. F. SALAZAR, Warden,

Defendant.

Kevin Gunn seeks the Court’s permission to appeal the dismissal of his petition for

writ of habeas corpus. The Court denies the request because an appeal is doomed to fail.

Gunn’s habeas petition was undeniably late, and the Ninth Circuit recently held in Lee v.

Lampert, __F.3d. __, No. 09-35276, 2010 WL 2652505 (9th Cir. July 6, 2010), that a claim

of innocence doesn’t excuse a habeas petitioner from AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations. 

I. Procedural History

Gunn filed his initial petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 27, 2008, and

his amended petition on June 23, 2008. The petition was then referred to Magistrate

Judge McCurine, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, for a report and recommendation (“R&R”).

Salazar moved to dismiss the petition on August 26, 2008, and on December 5, 2008,

Magistrate Judge McCurine issued his R&R. The R&R was devoted exclusively to the

timeliness of Gunn’s petition, which the R&R concluded was time-barred, entitled to

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 41 Filed 07/27/10 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

 There was some confusion on Gunn’s part as to when his application was due, but 1

that question is moot now that Gunn has filed an application. The Court concedes that its

June 21, 2010 order giving Gunn until June 22, 2010 to file his application wasn’t as artfully

drafted as it could have been. The problem, from the Court’s perspective, is that Gunn

appeared to have stopped working on his application while a motion for an extension was

pending, which is not acceptable behavior. Even if Gunn didn’t receive the June 21 order

until June 24, as he represents, the fact remains that Gunn’s last request for an extension

of time sought a deadline of June 21, 2010, and he should have been working on his

application with that deadline in mind. 

- 2 - 08cv0972

neither statutory nor equitable tolling. The Court reviewed the R&R, considered an

objection filed by Gunn, and on March 27, 2009 adopted the R&R and dismissed Gunn’s

petition for his failure to file it within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d). 

Gunn then filed a motion for reconsideration, along with a request for counsel, on

May 4, 2009. On February 19, 2010, the Court denied the motion and the request for

counsel. Specifically, in the response to the motion for reconsideration, the Court

reaffirmed that Gunn’s habeas petition was time-barred. More specifically, it was

untimely by at least 101 days. The court further declined to address the merits of Gunn’s

petition on the basis of innocence because Gunn failed to bring to light any new evidence

that could plausibly establish his innocence, as required by Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298

(1995). Gunn only made general arguments that the evidence against him was thin,

proffering testimony of a psychology professor that attested generally to the problems

with eyewitness identifications, as well as an advocacy piece from a magazine and a

statement from the magazine’s publisher lacking neutrality and authority. 

After being granted several extensions, Gunn filed an application for a certificate

of appealability on July 22, 2010.1

II. Whether a Certificate of Appealability Should Issue

A habeas petitioner may not appeal the dismissal or denial of a petition without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28

U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The district court may issue a certificate of

appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 41 Filed 07/27/10 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

- 3 - 08cv0972

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner must

“demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable[.]’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Where, as here, the district court denies the habeas petition on procedural

grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of

appealability should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petitioner 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 rulings. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In the wake of Lee v. Lampert, -

__F.3d. __, No. 09-35276, 2010 WL 2652505 (9th Cir. July 6, 2010), this Court’s

procedural rulings are not debatable.

Under AEDPA, state prisoners have one year, absent tolling, to file a federal

habeas petition – starting on the date the judgment against them in state court is final. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court previously found that Gunn’s habeas petition was at least

101 days late. (Doc. Nos 17, 28.) The magistrate judge’s R&R, and this Court’s order

adopting it, also make clear that there are no extraordinary circumstances that allow the

remaining days to be equitably tolled. Until recently, the only possible gateway through

the statute of limitations for Gunn was the “actual innocence exception” pursuant to

Schlup, which provides that a petitioner is entitled to have the claims of his petition heard

on the merits if he can make a showing of actual innocence. With equitable and statutory

tolling unavailable, Gunn’s motion for reconsideration relied heavily on his claim of

innocence.

The recent Lee decision, however, limited the Schlup innocence exception in the

Ninth Circuit to second or successive habeas petitions, holding that there is no actual

innocence exception to the one year statute of limitation for filing an original petition for

habeas corpus relief. The court in Lee looked closely at the exceptions provided for in the

AEDPA statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). The statute provides alternative start

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 41 Filed 07/27/10 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

- 4 - 08cv0972

dates for the statute of limitations when: (1) the state created an impediment to filing; (2)

a new constitutional right relevant to the case had been announced; or (3) a petitioner

discovered new facts through the exercise of due diligence. Not wanting district courts to

expend vast resources “on the assumption that an actual innocence exception exists,”

the court explains, “‘§ 2244(d) contains no explicit exemption for petitions claiming actual

innocence,’ and we decline to add one.” Lee, 2010 WL 2652505 at *3, *8 (quoting Cousin

v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843, 849 (5 Cir. 2002)). th

Gunn’s habeas petition was untimely. There is no debating that. There is also no

debating that in light of the Lee decision, no showing of actual innocence can exempt

Gunn’s petition from AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Gunn’s application for a certificate of

appealability is therefore DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 41 Filed 07/27/10 Page 4 of 4