Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01327/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01327-3/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 - 10cv1327

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY HILL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1327-LAB (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. RECONSIDERATION

DOMINGO URIBE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Anthony Hill, a prisoner in state custody, sought habeas relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 4, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the petition.

Judgment was entered February 7 and a certificate of appealability denied February 8. 

Hill has now filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”), which the Court

construes as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) also provides for

relief from a final judgment, but none of the reasons are applicable here.

In its order of February 4, the Court noted that Hill had no state habeas petition

pending from June 29, 2006 to December 3, 2007, and therefore waited 17 months between

rounds of his state habeas petition. Because this was an unreasonable delay as a matter

of law, the Court found that Hill was not entitled to equitable tolling for the three-year period

between his final conviction and his filing of the petition in this Court.

The Motion argues Hill’s private counsel, who was assisting him with filing state

habeas petitions, is to blame for the 17-month delay. Though Hill has provided documentary

Case 3:09-cv-01327-LAB-DHB Document 30 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 3
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

 Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s report and recommendation (the “R&R”)

1

recommended denying the petition on the merits, finding it simpler than wading through the

miry procedural history of Hill’s various state habeas petitions. But precedential decisions

issued after the R&R made resolution of this issue simpler, so the Court reached it in its

February 4 order. The fact that the R&R didn’t rely on the time bar does not help Hill,

however. As soon as he filed his traverse, failing to address this issue, the Court could have

withdrawn its reference of the petition to Judge Bencivengo at any time, and denied relief

based solely on the answer and traverse. He was not entitled to ignore this issue during

briefing and raise it in a motion for reconsideration.

- 2 - 10cv1327

evidence showing he was represented by counsel, Hill’s claims of malpractice are supported

only by his own unsworn allegations that his attorney misled him about what was going on

in his case. 

This is the first time Hill has made this argument to this Court. Even though

Respondent specifically pointed this out, arguing that Hill’s petition was untimely for this

reason alone (Ans. to Pet., 11:18–21, 12:18–26, 14:1–3), Hill ignored this argument in his

traverse, and certainly never raised the claims he is now raising. The traverse instead made

the meritless argument that Respondent could not rely on AEDPA’s limitations period as a

bar, because of Respondent’s own delay in filing a motion to dismiss in this case. The

remainder of the traverse focused on the merits of Hill’s claims.1

Hill’s attempt to raise these arguments for the first time in a motion for reconsideration

is improper, and for that reason alone would be denied. “A motion for reconsideration may

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

Furthermore, Hill’s arguments are unavailing. After Hill allegedly realized his counsel

had abandoned him and began representing himself in state habeas proceedings, he filed

a petition in the California Supreme Court. That court found his petition was untimely and

repetitive. (Lodgment 18 at 2.) The Court is required to accept the determination of a

factual issue made by a state court, unless the petitioner can rebut “the presumption of

correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Knowing that his

petition was filed after an unreasonable delay, Hill could and should have shown the

Case 3:09-cv-01327-LAB-DHB Document 30 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 3
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 - 10cv1327

California Supreme Court why his petition shouldn’t be denied as untimely. But either he

didn’t make this showing, or else the court rejected it. Either way, Hill’s allegations and

meager documentary evidence don’t rebut the California Supreme Court’s finding of

untimeliness.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in Walker v. Martin, ___ S.Ct. __, 2011 WL

611627 (Feb. 23, 2011) further confirms that denial is required, because Hill procedurally

defaulted in state court and has made no adequate showing of cause and prejudice. See id.

at *6 (citing Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84–85 (1977)).

One point in the Court’s order of February 4, 2011 bears clarification, however. That

order says Hill’s conviction became final when the California Supreme Court, en banc,

denied appellate review on April 20, 2005. (Order at 3:5–6.) More specifically, the order

should have clarified that his conviction became final ninety days after that date. See Brown

v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999); Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d

1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). The February 4 order is therefore deemed AMENDED to reflect

this clarification. This amendment does not affect the outcome of the case in any way,

however.

Hill’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. For reasons explained in the Court’s

earlier rulings, the certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01327-LAB-DHB Document 30 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 3