Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00242/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00242-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE MANLY BASKERVILLE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv0242 WQH-BGS

ORDER

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, et al.,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) filed by

United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal recommending that the Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 11) filed by Respondent be granted and that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(ECF No. 1) filed by Petitioner be dismissed. 

BACKGROUND

In 1988, Petitioner pled guilty to five counts of residential burglary and was sentenced

to eight years in custody. (Lodgment 11). In 1997, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of

robbery and attempted robbery. (Lodgment 2). In a 1998 bifurcated hearing following that

conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to fifty years to life based on his prior strike convictions

from 1988. (Lodgment 4). The California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s direct appeal

on November 23, 1998 (Lodgment 4) and the Supreme Court of California denied further

review on February 3, 1999 (Lodgment 6). 

- 1 - 10cv2226-WQH-WMc

Case 3:11-cv-00242-WQH-BGS Document 29 Filed 03/09/12 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

27

28

On January 8, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Superior Court which was denied on February 7, 2000. (Lodgment 7). On March 17, 2000,

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal which

was denied on April 26, 2000. Id. On May 30, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court which was denied on September 27, 2000. Id. 

On October 19, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was assigned case number 00CV2119-K-BEN. 

(Lodgment 8). The Court dismissed the petition because one of the claims remained

unexhausted. Id. There is no evidence on the record that Petitioner appealed this decision.

In 2008, Petitioner filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus in California Superior

Court. (Lodgment 10). In this petition, Petitioner claimed for the first time that the sentencing

court in 1998 improperly counted his prior five burglary convictions as strike priors. 

According to Petitioner, the plea agreement in that case promised that the five convictions

would only count as one strike. On May 5, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the

petition on its merits because the court found that no such promise was contained in the plea

agreement. Id. The California Supreme Court additionally denied the petition as untimely and

successive because Petitioner could have, but did not, raise this particular claim in any of his

earlier proceedings. Id.

On November 10, 2008, the California Court of Appeal denied the petition on its merits

and for procedural default as untimely and successive. (Lodgment 12). On May 20, 2010, the

California Supreme Court denied the petition, citing In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750 (1993) and In

re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998). (Lodgment 14.)

On January 28, 2011, Petitioner filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). The first and only grounds for the

petition is that the sentencing court in 1998 improperly counted Petitioner’s prior burglary

convictions as strike priors, contrary to Petitioner’s understanding of the plea agreement. This

is the same claim that the California Supreme Court denied on its merits and as untimely on

May 20, 2010. (Lodgments 12, 14.)

- 2 - 10cv2226-WQH-WMc

Case 3:11-cv-00242-WQH-BGS Document 29 Filed 03/09/12 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

27

28

On April 4, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Petitioner’s

claims are (1) procedurally defaulted as untimely and (2) barred by the statute of limitations

under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). (ECF No. 11). On May

19, 2011, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Petitioner

contends that he should be excused from procedural default because he can demonstrate cause

for the delay along with prejudice, and that equitable tolling may apply to the AEDPA statute

of limitations. 

On November 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation

recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be denied. (ECF No. 22). 

The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner defaulted on his claims in state court pursuant to

independent and adequate procedural state rules and that the AEDPA statute of limitations

applied to barr Petitioners claims in federal court. 

On December 23, 2011, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation

that recited verbatum the arguments contained in Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to

dismiss. (ECF No. 26; see also ECF No. 19). 

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not

review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed de novo the petition, the record, and the submissions of the

parties. The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that, “[u]nder the doctrine of procedural default,

a petitioner who has defaulted on his claims in state court is barred from raising them in federal

court so long as the default is ‘pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule.’”

- 3 - 10cv2226-WQH-WMc

Case 3:11-cv-00242-WQH-BGS Document 29 Filed 03/09/12 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

27

28

(ECF No. 22 at 5, quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)), and that

“California’s time limitation requiring the filing of petitions seeking habeas relief without

‘substantial delay’... is a basis independent of the federal questions and adequate to support a

state court judgment.” Id. at 5-6, quoting Walker v. Martin, – U.S. –, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1131

(2011). The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that “unless Baskerville demonstrates ‘cause and

actual prejudice,’ or that failure to consider his claim would constitute a ‘fundamental

miscarriage of justice,’ this Court may not entertain Baskerville’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus.” Id. at 7, quoting Noltie v. Peterson, 9 F.3d 802, 804-05 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that, “[f]ollowing the final adjudication of his

direct appeal in 1999, Baskerville delayed nearly a decade before asserting the current habeas

claim in state court.” (ECF No. 22 at 7). The Magistrate Judge correctly attributed the delay

“to Baskerville’s lack of diligence” rather than any error on the part of appellate counsel or

difficulties in acquiring documents from the 1988 case. Id. at 8. The Magistrate Judge

correctly concluded that there was no evidence of cause for the lengthy delay, and “this case

does not present circumstances warranting application of the fundamental miscarriage of

justice exception....” Id. at 9. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly applied the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations for

filing petitions for writ of habeas corpus to Petitioner’s claims. The Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that “Baskerville does not qualify for a later start date to AEDPA’s statute of

limitations” and that “while Baskerville qualifies for some statutory tolling, he does not qualify

for nearly enough to make his 2011 federal petition timely.” Id. at 11-12. The Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner failed to show entitlement to equitable tolling. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that “[b]ecause a procedural default in the

state court precludes this Court’s review.... [and] the current Petition is time barred under

AEDPA... dismissal with prejudice is appropriate as subsequent petitions would be untimely.” 

Id. at 15. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that a certificate of appealability shall issue when

the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should

- 4 - 10cv2226-WQH-WMc

Case 3:11-cv-00242-WQH-BGS Document 29 Filed 03/09/12 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

27

28

have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Id. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that, given

the above conclusions regarding procedural default and the AEDPA statue of limitations, “it

does not appear that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner.” Id. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that a

certificate of appealability should not be issued in this case. Id. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is

ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) filed by Respondent is

GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) filed by Petitioner is

DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment in favor of Respondents.

DATED: March 8, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 10cv2226-WQH-WMc

Case 3:11-cv-00242-WQH-BGS Document 29 Filed 03/09/12 Page 5 of 5