Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02835/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02835-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. BLACK, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-06-2835 MCE KJM P 

vs.

MICHAEL C. KRAMER, 

Respondent. 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. Petitioner is serving a prison term of eighteen-years-tolife in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Respondent has

filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s habeas application as time-barred. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides as follows, in pertinent part:

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;

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02835-MCE -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/30/08 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

(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). The convictions at issue in this action became final for purposes of

§ 2244(d)(1)(A) on October 4, 2004 when petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari to the United

States Supreme Court was denied. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #5. The limitations period applicable

to this action began running the next day.

On June 22, 2005, petitioner filed an application for collateral relief in the

Superior Court of Siskiyou County. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #6 (proof of service attached to

application indicates petitioner submitted it to prison officials for mailing on June 22, 2005);

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (documents filed by prisoners deemed “filed” when

submitted to prison officials for mailing). The petition was denied, in part, as untimely under

California law. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #7. Title 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2) provides that “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.” However, petitioner’s Siskiyou County application was not

“properly filed” for purposes of § 2244(d)(2) because it was deemed untimely. Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). 

Petitioner’s next application for collateral relief was filed in the California Court

of Appeal, Third Appellate District on August 20, 2005. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #8; Houston, 487

U.S. at 270. The Court of Appeal denied the application without comment on October 6, 2005. 

Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #9. Petitioner also sought habeas relief in the California Supreme Court,

Case 2:06-cv-02835-MCE -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/30/08 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

filing in that court on October 14, 2005. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #10; Houston, 487 U.S. at 270. 

The Supreme Court denied that petition without comment. Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. #11. Because

the state Court of Appeal and Supreme Court denied without comment, this court assumes these

applications were denied for the same reasons as the Superior Court application. Ylst v.

Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991). Therefore, the applications filed in the Court of Appeal

and Supreme Court are deemed as based on grounds of untimeliness and cannot provide a basis

for tolling under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2). See Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1147-49 & n.13

(9th Cir. 2005), as amended by 439 F.3d 993, cert. denied, U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 132 (2006)

(lower court’s finding of timeliness controls when higher court issues an unexplained denial of

an application for collateral relief). 

In light of the foregoing, and because there is no other basis for tolling the

limitations period during the year following the denial of petitioner’s application for writ of

certiorari, the applicable limitations period ran out on October 4, 2005, more than one year before

this action was filed. Therefore, respondent’s motion to dismiss this action as time-barred should

be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s June 8, 2007 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 2:06-cv-02835-MCE -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/30/08 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: January 29, 2008.

1/blac2835.157

Case 2:06-cv-02835-MCE -KJM Document 18 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 4