Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01455/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01455-3/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

CHARLES JOHNSON Jr.,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-1455 WBS KJN P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pending before the court is respondent’s February 16, 2010 motion to dismiss on

the grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 14. Petitioner filed

an opposition on April 19, 2010. Dkt. No. 16. After carefully considering the entire record, the

court recommends that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and this case closed.

II. Motion to Dismiss

The statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions is set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(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

Case 2:09-cv-01455-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 5
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

 The court has referred to all page numbers as they appear on the court’s electronic filing 1

system, as respondent’s exhibits are not numbered consecutively. 

 The court affords petitioner application of the mailbox rule as to all his habeas filings in 2

state court and in this federal court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner

filing is dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities); Stillman v. Lamarque, 319

F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003)(mailbox rule applies to pro se prisoner who delivers habeas petition

to prison officials for the court within limitations period). In any event, the mailbox rule is

inconsequential in this case.

2

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.

On January 7, 2005, petitioner pled no contest to being an ex-felon in possession

of a firearm and admitted two prior felony convictions. Motion to Dismiss (MTD) at 29. On 1

March 8, 2005, petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. Id. Petitioner did not

appeal the conviction. Therefore, petitioner’s conviction became final 60 days later on May 7,

2005, upon the expiration of time to seek review. Cal. Rules of Court 8.308(a); Lewis v.

Mitchell, 173 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (discussing former California Rules of

Court Rule 31(d)) . 

Time began to run the next day, on May 8, 2005. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d

1243, 1246 (9thCir. 2001). Petitioner had one year, that is, until May 8, 2006, to file a timely

federal petition, absent applicable tolling. The instant action, filed May 17, 2009, is not timely 2

unless petitioner is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling.

Case 2:09-cv-01455-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner filed three state post-conviction collateral actions: 

1. May 22, 2008: First habeas petition filed in Solano County Superior Court. 

MTD at 25. The petition was denied on July 30, 2008. Id. at 36.

2. August 29, 2008. Second habeas petition filed in the California Court of

Appeal. MTD at 39. The petition was denied on September 17, 2008. Id. at 42.

3. October 22, 2008: Third habeas petition filed in the California Supreme Court. 

MTD at 62. The petition was denied on April 15, 2009. Id. at 81. 

 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 17, 2009. 

Statutory Tolling

Under AEDPA, the period of limitation is tolled while a “properly filed”

application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(2). Petitions are properly filed so long as there was no unreasonable delay between the

petitions, and if each petition is properly filed, then a petitioner is entitled to a tolling of the

statute of limitations during the intervals between a lower court decision and the filing of a

petition in a higher court during one complete round of appellate review (“interval tolling”). See

Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 193-94 (2006).

The Supreme Court has explained that in order for a state habeas petition to be

“properly filed” for purposes of statutory tolling, the petition's delivery and acceptance must be in

compliance with the laws and rules governing such filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408,

413-14 (2005). “[T]ime limits, no matter their form, are ‘filing’ conditions.” Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. at 417. “When a post-conviction petition is untimely under state law,

that is the end of the matter for purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” Id. at 414. Under such circumstances,

the petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling. Id. at 417.

Petitioner’s first state petition was filed May 22, 2008, more than two years after

the statute of limitations for filing a federal petition expired. Petitioner is not entitled to statutory

tolling for all three state petitions as all of these petitions were filed after the expiration of the

limitations period which occurred on May 8, 2006. State habeas petitions filed after the one-year

Case 2:09-cv-01455-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 Petitioner presents arguments citing state law, but the court will construe the arguments to 3

pertain to federal habeas relief.

 Petitioner does not specify if the facts he discovered apply to one or all three of his habeas

4

claims. The three grounds in the underlying action are: 1) petitioner’s counsel was ineffective for

failing to properly investigate petitioner’s prior enhancements with respect to sentencing; 2) the trial

judge erred by failing to recuse himself as he had previously presided over one of petitioner’s prior

convictions; and 3) the trial judge erred by using a prior 1993 conviction as a strike. Petition at 4-6.

4

federal statute of limitations has expired do not revive the statute of limitations and have no

tolling effect. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003); Jimenez v. Rice,

276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, the instant federal petition filed on May 17, 2009, is

untimely.

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioner appears to argue that

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D), that statute of limitations should be given a later start

date. Petitioner states that his trial counsel informed him that he could not appeal because he 3

pled guilty as part of a plea deal but there was no mention of a habeas corpus appeal. Opposition

at 3. At some unspecified point, petitioner states he became aware that he had a meritorious

issue to pursue. Id. at 4. Petitioner provides no details when he became aware of the facts

regarding the meritorious issue or how he became aware of the facts.4

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) provides that the limitations period may run from

the date on which the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through due

diligence. A prisoner knows of the factual predicate of a claim “when . . . he knows (or through

the diligence could discover) the important facts, not when the prisoner recognizes their legal

significance.” Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Owens v. Boyd,

235 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2000)).

In the instant case, petitioner has failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate

that the statute of limitations should be given a later start date. Petitioner does not state when he

became aware of the factual predicate of the claim, nor does he show that he exercised due

diligence in pursuing the factual predicate of the claim. While petitioner provides very little facts

Case 2:09-cv-01455-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

to support his argument, as far as the court can discern it seems that at some point petitioner

recognized the legal significance of an issue regarding his sentence, rather than discovering some

unknown fact. If that is in fact the case, petitioner would still not be entitled to a later

commencement date of the statute of limitations. Hasan, 254 F.3d at 1154 n. 3. Regardless,

petitioner’s conclusory statements that he became aware of a meritorious issue and pursued it are

insufficient to provide a different commencement date of the statute of limitations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s February 16,

2010 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) be granted and this case closed.

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 twentyone 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 response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: May 5, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

john1455.mtd

Case 2:09-cv-01455-WBS-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 5