Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01246/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01246-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
--
Respondent
Tony Andre Sampson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Tony Andre Sampson,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-1246 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Mark Shepherd, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to

dismiss upon the ground the petition is untimely. Petitioner

filed no opposition.

Petitioner was convicted July 24, 1995.

Petitioner appealed and the appellate court affirmed May 16,

1997.

August 14, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. 

December 30, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of 

Case 2:05-cv-01246-FCD-PAN Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 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

2

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court.

April 14, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied

petitioner’s first application for a writ of habeas corpus.

October 13, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied

petitioner’s second application for a writ of habeas corpus.

June 22, 2005, petitioner filed a federal application for a

writ of habeas corpus.

A one-year limitation period for seeking federal habeas

relief begins to run from the latest of the date the judgment

became final on direct review, the date on which a state-created

impediment to filing is removed, the date the United States

Supreme Court makes a new rule retroactively applicable to cases

on collateral review or the date on which the factual predicate

of a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The period began to run from

the date the judgment of conviction became final based on the

expiration of the time for seeking review from the California

Court of Appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Smith v. Duncan,

297 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2002). Under California law, the

conviction became final June 25, 1997, --forty (40) days after

the California Court of Appeal filed its opinion. See Cal. Rules

of Court, rules 24(a), 28(b), 45(a); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 12a. 

A properly filed state post conviction application tolls the

statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In California,

a properly filed post conviction application is “pending” during

the intervals between a lower court decision and filing a new

Case 2:05-cv-01246-FCD-PAN Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 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

3

petition in a higher court. Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223

(2002). 

Petitioner had until June 25, 1998, to file a federal

application and so absent tolling, petitioner’s June 22, 2005,

application is untimely.

Neither the August 14, 2003, nor the December 30, 2003,

petition provides a basis for statutory tolling because they were

filed after the limitation period expired. See Fergusun v.

Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (section 2244(d)

does not permit re-initiation of the limitation period when it

expires before a timely state petition for post-conviction relief

was filed).

I find petitioner’s June 22, 2005, petition is untimely.

For these reasons, respondent’s August 10, 2005, motion

should be granted and this action should be dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01246-FCD-PAN Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3