Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00728/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00728-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seng Choy Saechao
Petitioner
Pat L. Vazquez
Respondent

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SENG CHOY SAECHAO,

Petitioner,

v.

PAT L. VAZQUEZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-00728-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 10

I. INTRODUCTION

Seng Choy Saechao filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely, and Mr. 

Saechao has opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the action 

as untimely because the statute of limitations deadline expired more than fifteen years before Mr. 

Saechao filed his habeas petition. 

II. BACKGROUND

The petition in this action challenges 1996 and 1997 convictions and sentences in two

cases from Marin County Superior Court. See Docket No. 1-1 at 4-7.

In one case (i.e., Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC088707), following a jury trial, 

Mr. Saechao was convicted of assault with a firearm, possession of a concealed dirk or dagger, 

possession of a firearm by a felon, and carrying a concealed firearm. Sentence enhancement 

allegations were found true. On April 14, 1997, Mr. Saechao was sentenced to fifty-one years to 

life in prison. Id. at 4, 21-23.

In the other case (i.e., Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC090350), Mr. Saechao 

pled guilty and was convicted of carjacking and possession of a firearm by a felon. Sentence 

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 6
2

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

For the Northern District of California

enhancement allegations were found true. On July 21, 1997, Mr. Saechao was sentenced to 

twenty years in prison. Docket No. 1-1 at 7, 24-26. 

Mr. Saechao appealed the conviction in the first case, but not in the second case. On 

December 23, 1998, the judgment of conviction in Case No. SC088707 was affirmed by the 

California Court of Appeal. On March 9, 1999, Mr. Saechao’s petition for review was denied by 

the California Supreme Court. 

About fifteen years later, Mr. Saechao began his collateral attacks on both of these 

convictions. He filed several petitions in the state courts jointly attacking both of these 

convictions. Mr. Saechao filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal on October 21, 

2014, which was denied on October 30, 2014 (i.e., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A143314). Next, Mr. 

Saechao filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on December 1, 2014, which was 

denied on February 11, 2015 (i.e., Cal. S. Ct. No. S223056). On the same day he filed his first 

habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, Mr. Saechao filed another habeas petition in the 

California Court of Appeal on December 1, 2014, which was denied on December 3, 2014 (i.e., 

Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A143629). Mr. Saechao filed another habeas petition in the California 

Court of Appeal on January 16, 2015, which was denied on January 21, 2015 (Cal. Ct. App. Case 

No. A143984).

In August 2015, Mr. Saechao filed in the Marin County Superior Court a request under 

California Penal Code § 1170.18 to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor in Case No. SC090350. 

The superior court determined that Mr. Saechao was not eligible for resentencing under § 1170.18

and denied his request. Docket No. 1-1 at 15. This proceeding did not challenge the convictions 

or sentences from 1996 and 1997; instead, this proceeding resulted from a change in the law in 

November 2014 when Proposition 47 was approved by California voters. Section 1170.18 

provided a procedure for prisoners to file petitions for recall of a sentence to have felonies reduced 

to misdemeanors under certain specified conditions. See Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 5th 984, 

989-92 (Cal. 2016). Thereafter, Mr. Saechao filed two more habeas petitions in the state courts. 

From the record, it cannot be determined whether they were challenges to the denial of his §

1170.18 request or challenges to the 1996 and 1997 convictions. To give Mr. Saechao the benefit 

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

of the doubt, the Court will assume for present purposes that these petitions challenged the 1996 

and 1997 convictions. Mr. Saechao filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal on

October 5, 2015, which was denied on October 15, 2015 (i.e., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A146398). 

Mr. Saechao filed a habeas petition in the Marin County Superior Court on October 19, 2015, 

which was denied on November 25, 2015, using the same case number (SC195030) as was used in 

the original case in 1997.

Mr. Saechao’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus has a proof of service showing it 

was mailed to the U.S. District Court in Santa Rosa, California, on January 25, 2016. Docket No. 

1 at 29. The envelope has a January 26, 2016 postmark, and was addressed to a court in Santa 

Rosa, California. Docket No. 1-2. The court at the address in Santa Rosa to which Mr. Saechao 

sent his petition was the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, rather than the U.S. District Court. The petition 

was forwarded and stamped “filed” at this Court in San Francisco on February 12, 2016. 

Applying the prison mailbox rule, the Court assumes for present purposes that Mr. Saechao gave 

his petition to prison officials to mail on the date he signed the proof of service, and deems the 

petition to have been filed as of January 25, 2016, even though it was mailed to the wrong federal 

court. See Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (mailbox rule provides that 

pro se prisoner’s filing of a document is deemed to have occurred when he gives it to prison 

officials to mail to the court). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposed a statute 

of limitations on petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by 

prisoners challenging noncapital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the 

latest of the date on which: (1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or 

the time has passed for seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by 

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the 

constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly 

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the 

factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 6
4

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

For the Northern District of California

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Mr. Saechao’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus suggested his two criminal cases 

were combined or otherwise consolidated in the Marin County Superior Court. It turns out that 

the cases took different paths in the trial court and with regard to Mr. Saechao’s direct appeal. As 

a result, the starting date for the limitations period for each of the two cases must be calculated 

separately. 

Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC088707: The limitations period began when the 

judgment became final upon “the expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). “[W]hen a petitioner fails to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States 

Supreme Court, the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period begins to run on the date the ninety-day 

period defined by Supreme Court Rule 13 expires.” Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.

1999). The California Supreme Court denied Mr. Saechao’s petition for review on March 9, 1999. 

His conviction in Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC088707 became final 90 days 

thereafter, on June 7, 1999, because he did not petition for writ of certiorari. See Greene v. Fisher, 

132 S. Ct. 38, 44 (2011) (“Finality occurs when direct state appeals have been exhausted and a 

petition for writ of certiorari from this Court has become time barred or has been disposed of”). 

His one-year limitations period thus began on June 7, 1999, and he had a presumptive deadline of 

June 7, 2000, to file his federal habeas petition challenging this conviction.

Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC090350: The limitations period in this case 

began when the judgment became final upon “the expiration of the time for seeking [direct] 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Where, as here, a petitioner could have sought review in the 

state court of appeals or the state supreme court, but did not, the limitations period begins on the 

day after the date on which the time to seek such review expired. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 

641, 653-54 (2012). The rule for California criminal defendants in 1997 was that, where the 

defendant did not pursue a direct appeal, his judgment became final 60 days after the sentence was 

imposed. See former Cal. Rule of Court 31 (1994) (later amended effective Jan. 1, 2007, and 

renumbered as Rule 8.308); People v. Mendez, 19 Cal. 4th 1084, 1094 (Cal. 1999). Mr. Saechao 

was sentenced on July 21, 1997, and his judgment became final 60 days later, on September 19, 

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1997, because he did not appeal. His one-year limitations period thus began on September 19, 

1997, and he had a presumptive deadline of September 19, 1998, to file his federal habeas petition 

challenging this conviction.

The next step in both of Mr. Saechao’s cases is to determine whether statutory tolling 

applies. The one-year limitations period can be tolled for the “time during which a properly filed 

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent 

judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Mr. Saechao does not receive any 

statutory tolling for either of his cases because the limitations period for each case expired long 

before he filed his first state habeas petition in 2014. His state habeas petitions were filed after the 

limitations period had expired and therefore had no tolling effect. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 

F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[§] 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations 

period that has ended before the state petition was filed,” even if the state petition was timely 

filed).

The one-year limitations period can be equitably tolled because § 2244(d) is not 

jurisdictional. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). “[A] litigant seeking equitable 

tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights 

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Id. at 655 (quoting 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2006). Mr. Saechao has not shown any reason to equitably toll the limitations period in 

either of his two cases. 

Mr. Saechao filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, but his arguments in his 

opposition do not defeat Respondent’s motion. Mr. Saechao argues that Respondent’s motion 

failed to mention a 1993 conviction Mr. Saechao suffered. Docket No. 11. But Mr. Saechao does 

not show that the 1993 conviction has any bearing on the timeliness of his federal habeas petition 

challenging his 1997 convictions. Mr. Saechao’s opposition also discusses the merits of his 

claims for habeas relief. The substance of the claims in a petition does not matter for purposes of 

determining whether the petition was filed on time. Whether or not his claims are meritorious, a 

habeas petitioner must file his petition before the expiration of the limitations period to have those 

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 6
6

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

For the Northern District of California

claims considered.

Mr. Saechao’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on January 25, 2016, was 

filed more than fifteen years after the expiration of the federal habeas statute of limitations period 

for Marin County Superior Court Case No. SC088707 and more than seventeen years after the 

expiration of the federal habeas statute of limitations period for Marin County Superior Court 

Case No. SC090350. Mr. Saechao’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed 

as untimely. 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Docket No. 10. This action is dismissed 

because the petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed before the expiration of the habeas 

statute of limitations period. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00728-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 6