Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00870/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00870-0/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 

17-cv-0870-LAB-AGS 

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 

Fabian Alexander PROFFITT, 

Petitioner,

v. 

Warden KEETON, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 17-cv-0870-LAB-AGS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY AMENDED PETITION 

(ECF No. 11) 

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition years after the deadline. Because no 

tolling excuses his tardiness, his habeas application should be denied. 

BACKGROUND 

In 2010, petitioner Fabian Proffitt1

 pleaded guilty to multiple counts of seconddegree robbery with a dangerous weapon and, based partly on his priors, was sentenced to 

17 years in prison. (ECF No. 15-1, at 51; see also ECF No. 15-6, at 1-2.) In short order, 

Proffitt both appealed his sentence and filed a state habeas petition. (See ECF No. 15-1, at 

                                               

1

 Petitioner alternately spells his last name as “Proffitt” or “Proffit.” (Compare, e.g., 

ECF No. 1, at 18 (both spellings on same page).) Because his federal petition was captioned 

and docketed with the former spelling (see id. at 1), this Court will uniformly call him 

“Proffitt.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 16 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17-cv-0870-LAB-AGS 

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

53-54; ECF No. 15-5, at 1-16; ECF No. 15-7, at 1-20.) The California Court of Appeal 

dismissed the state habeas petition as moot because Proffitt’s appeal was still pending. (See 

ECF No. 15-8, at 2.) Later, that same Court affirmed Proffitt’s sentence, but remanded to 

“determine the limited issue of the date of Proffit[t]’s arrest and whether the custody credits 

awarded to him required correction.” (ECF No. 15-6, at 10.) Proffitt was resentenced no 

later than August 2012.2

 He did not appeal again. 

Thus, Proffitt’s judgment became final no later than October 2012, when the 60-day 

time limit expired for seeking direct review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Cal. R. Ct. 

8.308 (2010) (A “notice of appeal . . . must be filed within 60 days” of judgment.). Absent 

a basis for tolling, Proffitt’s deadline for filing a federal habeas petition was no later than 

October 2013, one year after his judgment became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

From October 2012 to October 2013, while his one-year federal habeas clock was 

ticking, Proffitt apparently took no legal action. But several months after his federal habeas 

deadline passed, he began a succession of new state habeas petitions. (See ECF Nos. 15-10, 

15-12, 15-14, 15-16, 15-18, 15-20, 15-22.) On April 17, 2017, he finally filed his federal 

habeas petition, which was promptly dismissed for procedural errors. (See ECF No. 1, at 

18; ECF No. 7.) He filed an amended federal habeas petition on June 28, 2017. (ECF 

No. 11, at 12.) 

                                               

2

 It is not clear that Proffitt ever had a formal re-sentencing hearing. (Compare ECF 

No. 15-1, at 51 (original abstract of judgment; hearing “06-24-10”) with ECF No. 15-10, 

at 12 (amended abstract; same hearing date).) In the light most favorable to Proffitt, any 

such re-sentencing would have occurred by August 2012. On May 22, 2012, the Court of 

Appeal remanded to determine Proffitt’s custody credits. (ECF No. 15-6, at 1, 10.) 

Thereafter, a Legal Status Summary form reflects a “Restoration of Credits” on 

“08/07/2012.” (ECF No. 15-10, at 11.) And Proffitt’s corrected custody credits are set forth 

in a Probation Department form dated August 30, 2012. (Id. at 14.) Finally, the associate 

warden at Proffitt’s prison wrote that “[o]n September 7, 2012, amended legal documents 

were received” regarding Proffitt’s “pre-prison credits.” (Id. at 15.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 16 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17-cv-0870-LAB-AGS 

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

DISCUSSION 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA, with limited 

exceptions, a state prisoner must file any federal habeas corpus petition within one year 

from the “date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or 

the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Because Proffitt’s 

one-year deadline ended no later than October 2013—long before he filed his 2017 federal 

habeas petition—his only recourse is statutory or equitable tolling. 

A. Statutory Tolling 

The AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is statutorily tolled during the period 

of any properly filed state habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). But Proffitt never 

had a petition pending during the one-year period. His first state petition was dismissed 

before the federal habeas limitations period “started to run, [so] it had no effect on the 

timeliness of the ultimate federal filing.” See Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir. 

2008). And he filed his remaining state petitions months (or years) after the federal habeas 

deadline expired. Filing a late petition does not restart the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. 

See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e hold that section 

2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended before the 

state petition was filed.”). Thus, statutory tolling does not apply. 

B. Equitable Tolling 

 The AEDPA’s limitations period is also “subject to equitable tolling in appropriate 

cases.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010) (citations omitted). A petitioner 

qualifies for such tolling “only if he shows ‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented 

timely filing.” Id. at 649 (citation omitted). Even if Proffitt’s numerous state petitions 

proved his diligence, the record is devoid of any extraordinary circumstances justifying his 

failure to file within the one-year period. In state proceedings, Proffitt argued that he 

“lacked legal knowledge.” (ECF No. 15-10, at 7; see also ECF No. 15-16, at 5.) But “a 

pro se petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary 

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 16 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17-cv-0870-LAB-AGS 

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

circumstance warranting equitable tolling.” Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 

(9th Cir. 2006). And Proffitt’s demonstrated ability to file state habeas petitions—both 

before and after the one-year limitation period—undercuts any claim that he had an 

extraordinary inability to pursue his legal rights. See Taylor v. Filson, 692 F. App’x 821, 

822 (9th Cir. 2017) (denying equitable tolling to a prisoner with “mental health issues,” 

reasoning that the petitioner “filed two state post-conviction actions, indicating he had the 

means to file a federal action”). So, equitable tolling is likewise unavailable. 

CONCLUSION 

 Because Proffitt’s federal habeas petition is several years late and no tolling is 

available, this Court recommends that his amended habeas petition be denied. Also, 

because no reasonable jurist would consider this conclusion “debatable or wrong,” the 

Court recommends that a certificate of appealability be denied. See Robertson v. Pichon, 

849 F.3d 1173, 1187 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 

The parties have 14 days from service of this report to file any objections to it. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 

served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 

Dated: May 1, 2018 

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 16 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4