Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00821-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rob Barnes
Respondent
Alejandro Machuca
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO MACHUCA, No. 2:16-CV-0821-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROB BARNES,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s

unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). Respondent argues the instant petition was filed beyond

the one-year statute of limitations and is, therefore, untimely. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenged a July 8, 2013, prison disciplinary decision. Petitioner

completed the prison appeal process on October 14, 2013. Petitioner states in the petition that he

began the state court review process on May 26, 2015, by filing a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in state court. 

1

Case 2:16-cv-00821-MCE-CMK Document 13 Filed 10/18/16 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

II. DISCUSSION

In cases challenging prison disciplinary proceedings, the limitation period begins

to run the day after the petitioner receives notice of final denial of his administrative appeals. 

See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). There is a presumption, which the

petitioner may rebut, that notice was received the day the denial was issued. See Valdez v.

Horel, 2007 WL 2344899 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 

The limitations period is tolled, however, for the time a properly filed application

for post-conviction relief is pending in the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). To be

“properly filed,” the application must be authorized by, and in compliance with, state law. See

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000); see also Allen v. Siebert, 128 S.Ct. 2 (2007); Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (holding that, regardless of whether there are exceptions to a

state’s timeliness bar, time limits for filing a state post-conviction petition are filing conditions

and the failure to comply with those time limits precludes a finding that the state petition is

properly filed). A state court application for post-conviction relief is “pending”during all the

time the petitioner is attempting, through proper use of state court procedures, to present his

claims. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). It is not, however, considered

“pending” after the state post-conviction process is concluded. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549

U.S. 327 (2007) (holding that federal habeas petition not tolled for time during which certiorari

petition to the Supreme Court was pending). Where the petitioner unreasonably delays between

state court applications, however, there is no tolling for that period of time. See Carey v. Saffold,

536 U.S. 214 (2002). If the state court does not explicitly deny a post-conviction application as

untimely, the federal court must independently determine whether there was undue delay. See id.

at 226-27. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:16-cv-00821-MCE-CMK Document 13 Filed 10/18/16 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

In this case, petitioner’s administrative appeal process was completed on October

14, 2013. Because petitioner did not begin the state court review process until May 2015 – well

after the one-year limitation period ended in October 2014 – petitioner is not entitled to any

tolling. The instant federal petitioner was filed in April 2016 and is untimely. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s

unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be granted. 

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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 17, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:16-cv-00821-MCE-CMK Document 13 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3