Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01021-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Mendez
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN CARLOS MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1: 05 CV 01021 WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court is Respondent’s motion

to dismiss.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 10, 1997, Petitioner was convicted of sexual battery, lewd and lascivious

conduct, and residential battery. He was sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of fifteen

years to life.

Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District

Case 1:05-cv-01021-WMW Document 16 Filed 01/14/08 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

(“Court of Appeal”). On February 23, 2000, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Petitioner

did not seek review in the California Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed three pro se post-conviction collateral challenges. First, Petitioner filed a

petition for post-conviction relief in Fresno County Superior Court on June 1, 2004. The Superior

Court denied the petition on June 21, 2004. Second, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction

relief in the Court of Appeal on July 13, 2004. The Court of Appeal denied the petition on July 29,

2004. Third, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the California Supreme Court on

August 23, 2004. The court denied the petition on July 13, 2005.

Petitioner filed the present petition on August 9, 2005.

LEGAL STANDARD

JURISDICTION

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct.

1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by

the United States Constitution. In addition, the conviction challenged arises out of the Fresno 

County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

2241(d). Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction over the action. 

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

1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. 

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct.

586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 th

F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other

th

grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable

to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the

AEDPA, thus it is governed by its provisions. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody

Case 1:05-cv-01021-WMW Document 16 Filed 01/14/08 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

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will

not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth

Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 th

S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly

established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather,

that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392 (1983);

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a criminal

conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. Brecht v.

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the state court’s factual

determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must accept all factual findings made

by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the presumption of correctness by clear and

convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769

(1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,

1388 (9 Cir. 1997). th

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

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, Section 2244, subdivision

Case 1:05-cv-01021-WMW Document 16 Filed 01/14/08 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

(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. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the ground that it is barred by the on-year

statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner has not responded to

Respondent’s motion. 

As Respondent explains, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Petitioner on

February 23, 2000. The state appeal process became “final”within the meaning of Section

2244(d)(1) when the time for filing a petition for review expired forty days later, on April 4, 2000. 

California Rules of Court, Rules 24(a), 28(b), 45(a); California Civil Procedure Code Section 12a. 

The one-year statute of limitations began running the next day, on April 5, 2000. Patterson v.

Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9 Cir. 2001)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)). Thus, absent any statutory or th

equitable tolling, the last day for Petitioner to file a federal habeas corpus petition was on April 4,

2001. 

Unfortunately, Petitioner did not file his first collateral challenge to his conviction until June

2004, over three years after the limitations period had expired. Because the limitations period had

Case 1:05-cv-01021-WMW Document 16 Filed 01/14/08 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

already expired, the collateral challenge had no tolling consequence. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001,

1003 (9th Cir.2000) (Petitioner is not entitled to tolling where the limitations period has already run);

see also Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.2000); Rendall v. Carey, 2002 WL 1346354

(N.D.Cal.2002). Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to any statutory tolling of the running of the statute

of limitations.

Petitioner has not responded to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, so has not presented any

equitable tolling argument in response to the motion. The court’s review of the petition has revealed

no basis for equitable tolling. Thus, the court must conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to

equitable tolling of the running of the statute of limitations.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2) This petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations;

3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01021-WMW Document 16 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 5