Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00945/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00945-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marshall
Respondent
Alexey Popov
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXEY POPOV, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN MARSHALL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00945-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his Petition on July 21, 2007. (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges one claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel against his trial counsel and another claim of ineffectiveness against

his appellate counsel, for, respectively, failing to retain an expert witness to testify to Petitioner’s

mental incapacity, and failing to pursue such grounds in Petitioner’s direct appeal.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. A

preliminary review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner may not have exhausted his state court

remedies and may also have filed his Petition beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations

Case 1:06-cv-00945-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

period. Petitioner’s two claims do appear at this point to state cognizable constitutional claims.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may raise the statute of limitations sua sponte

and dismiss the petition on those grounds. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2001)

(indicating that once a petitioner is given adequate notice and opportunity to respond to allegations

that his petition is subject to dismissal pursuant to AEDPA's statute of limitations, petitioner has the

burden of providing an adequate response).

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas

corpus filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063

(1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 586 th

(1997). The instant petition was filed on July 21, 2006; thus, it is subject to the provisions of the

AEDPA. 

The AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As amended, § 2244, subdivision (d)

reads: 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if

the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

(2) 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 shall

not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

///

Case 1:06-cv-00945-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, Petitioner asserts that he was convicted on September 27, 2000, and that the California

Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (“5 DCA”) affirmed his conviction on May 30, 2002. th

(Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Petitioner does not indicate that he ever filed a Petition for Review in the

California Supreme Court on direct appeal, nor does the Court’s independent review of the electronic

database for the California Courts reveal that any such filing was ever made. Therefore, direct

review would have concluded on July 30, 2002, when the 5 DCA issued its remittitur. Under 28 th

U.S.C. § 2244(d), the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations would have commenced the

following day and would have expired one year later on July 31, 2003.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) states that 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 shall not be counted toward” the one year limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (the Court held that a petitioner is normally entitled to one

“full round” of collateral review in state court without federal interference. While the “full round” is

properly in progress, the AEDPA’s one-year statute is tolled.). Welch v. Carey, 350 F.3d 1079 (9th

Cir. 2003) cert. denied by Welch v. Carey, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3930 (June 1, 2004). 

Petitioner indicates that he filed various state habeas petitions, the first of which was filed on

April 5, 2004 and rejected by the California Supreme Court on March 16, 2005. Thereafter,

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition on July 22, 2005, which was denied on November 1, 2005. 

Petitioner also apparently filed a state petition in the 5 DCA on February 17, 2004, that was denied th

two days later. 

From the foregoing, it appears that Petitioner may be entitled to statutory tolling for pending

state habeas petitions from approximately April 5, 2004 through March 16, 2005, and from July 22,

2005 through November, 2005. The instant petition was filed on July 21, 2006. However, it does

not appear that Petitioner was entitled to any statutory tolling from the issuance of remittitur by the

5 DCA on July 30, 2002 until his first state petition was filed on April 5, 2004. As mentioned, it th

would thus appear that the one-year statute of limitations expired on July 31, 2003, thus terminating

this Court’s ability to review his habeas petition. Moreover, because the statute of limitations would

have already expired before Petitioner filed his first state habeas petition in the 5 DCA on April 5, th

Case 1:06-cv-00945-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 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

In the event Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, he may wish to withdraw the instant petition because 1

of the one-year period of limitations in which a petitioner must file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). As mentioned, the limitations period is tolled during the time a petition for writ of habeas corpus is pending

in state court. However, it is not tolled for the time a federal petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 121

S.Ct. 2120, 69 USLW 4473 (2001). 

4

2004, those state habeas petitions would not afford Petitioner any tolling effect. Green v. White, 223

F.3d 1001, 1003 (9 Cir. 2000)(Petitioner not entitled to tolling where limitations period already had th

expired prior to filing state habeas proceedings); see Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th

Cir. 2000)(same); Jackson v. Dormire, 180 F.3d 919, 920 (9 Cir. 1999)(petitioner fails to exhaust

th

claims raised in state habeas corpus filed after expiration of one-year limitations period).

However, it is possible that Petitioner did file a Petition for Review in the California

Supreme Court on direct review and has simply neglected to inform the Court of that fact. Also, it is

possible that Petitioner had filed other state habeas petitions that would entitle him to statutory

tolling during the period in question, i.e., from July 31, 2002 through April 5, 2004, but has

neglected to inform the Court. Thus, because it is possible that Petitioner has simply failed to fully

inform the Court of facts that might entitled him to statutory tolling, thus making the instant petition

timely under the AEDPA, the Court will grant Petitioner leave to file an amended petition. In that

amended petition, Petitioner should include the specific dates on which any state court collateral

proceedings or direct appeal were pending so that the Court can ascertain whether or not the statute

of limitations has expired with respect to Petitioner’s claims. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition. Petitioner must inform the Court what claims have been presented to

the California Supreme Court as well as the dates when the California Supreme Court

ruled on those claims. Petitioner must also inform the Court as to all state habeas 1

petitions he has filed, the courts in which those petitions were filed, and the dates on

which the courts ruled on those petitions. Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow

this order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00945-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 11/26/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be clearly entitled “Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Petitioner is advised that the petition must set forth his claim(s),

including all the facts and arguments in support of said claim(s). With respect to any claims raised in

an amended petition, Petitioner must have presented those claims, either in his original state court

appeal or through a subsequent state habeas corpus petition, to the California Supreme Court prior to

raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to advise the Court in his amended petition

of the dates when the state courts ruled on the issues Petitioner raised. The Court will not consider

the original petition. 

Petitioner’s failure to file an amended petition in a timely fashion will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure prosecute the case and obey

orders of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00945-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 11/26/07 Page 5 of 5