Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05343/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05343-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris E. Blake
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS BLAKE,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-05343 CW (PR)

ORDER ALLOWING PETITIONER TO FILE

FURTHER OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION AS UNTIMELY

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a

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

Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the present petition as

untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d), the statute of limitations

established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 (AEDPA). Petitioner filed an opposition, and Respondent

filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court allows

Petitioner to file a further opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 8, 2004, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to

twelve years in prison for forcible rape and multiple related

felonies. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction, but he sought

collateral review beginning on November 10, 2005, when he filed

his state superior court habeas petition. Collateral review ended

on September 10, 2008, when the California Supreme Court summarily

denied his habeas petition.

On November 18, 2008, Petitioner filed the present federal

petition. 

DISCUSSION

The AEDPA became law on April 24, 1996 and imposed for the

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by

prisoners challenging non-capital state convictions or sentences

must be filed within one year of the latest date on which: (A) the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the

time passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing

an application created by unconstitutional state action was

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (C) 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 (D) the factual

predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). Also,

"[t]he 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." Id. § 2244(d)(2).

A state prisoner with a conviction finalized after April 24,

1996, such as Petitioner, ordinarily must file his federal habeas

petition within one year of the date his process of direct review

came to an end. See Calderon v. United States District Court

(Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part

on other grounds by Calderon v. United States District Court

(Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

The one-year period may start running from "the expiration of

the time for seeking [direct] review." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

If a petitioner could have sought review by the state court of

appeals or the state supreme court, but did not, the limitation

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

period will begin running against him the day after the date on

which the time to seek such review expired. See Smith v. Duncan,

297 F.3d 809, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Cal. Rule of Court

8.308(a) (providing that appeal from criminal judgment must be

filed within sixty days after rendition of judgment or making of

order being appealed) (formerly Cal. Rule of Court 31). 

In the present case, the statute of limitations started

running on March 8, 2004, when his sentence became final sixty

days after the date of sentencing. See § 2244(d)(1)(A); Cal. R.

Ct. 8.308(a). Thus, Petitioner had until March 8, 2005 to file

his federal habeas petition. Because he did not file the present

petition until November 18, 2008 -- more than three years and

eight months after the limitations period had expired -- the

petition is untimely unless he can show that he is entitled to

statutory or equitable tolling.

I. STATUTORY TOLLING

Petitioner filed his state superior court habeas petition on

November 10, 2005. However, he is not entitled to statutory

tolling under § 2244(d)(2) because the limitations period had

already run on March 8, 2005. The state petition filed on

November 10, 2005 does not revive the limitations period because

it had already expired. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820,

823 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to

statutory tolling.

II. EQUITABLE TOLLING

The one-year limitations period can be equitably tolled

because § 2244(d) is a statute of limitations and not a

jurisdictional bar. See Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288. "When external

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of diligence, account for

the failure to file a timely claim, equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations may be appropriate." Miles v. Prunty, 187

F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). Equitable tolling will not be

available in most cases because extensions of time should be

granted only if "'extraordinary circumstances' beyond [a]

prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time." 

Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). The Ninth Circuit has said that the petitioner "bears

the burden of showing that this extraordinary exclusion should

apply to him." Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.

2002). Where a prisoner fails to show "any causal connection"

between the grounds upon which he asserts a right to equitable

tolling and his inability to file a timely federal habeas

application, the equitable tolling claim will be denied. Gaston

v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2005), amended, 447

F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006).

The Court must also take care not to deny a motion for

equitable tolling before a sufficient record can be developed. In

Laws v. Lamarque, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's

order granting a motion to dismiss because it failed to develop

the record in response to Laws's claim of mental incompetency. 

351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, under Laws, a district

court may not grant a motion to dismiss merely because a

petitioner fails to provide evidence beyond conclusory statements

to support his claim for equitable tolling. Rather, the court may

only dismiss a claim in the presence of a sufficiently developed

record containing "countervailing evidence" that rebuts a

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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's claim. Id.

Petitioner asserts that limited access to the prison law

library prevented him from filing a timely federal habeas

petition. (Opp'n at 1.) However, Petitioner's allegations do not

show a causal connection between his claim of limited access to

the library and his inability to file a timely federal habeas

application. Nor do "ordinary prison limitations on . . . access

to the law library and copier" constitute extraordinary

circumstances or make it impossible to file on time. See Ramirez

v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore,

Petitioner does not show an "extraordinary circumstance" meriting

equitable tolling due to an alleged restriction on library access.

Petitioner also claims that he suffered from "mental

difficulties." (Opp'n at 1.) While the record contains some

medical reports from April through May of 2004, these reports

alone are insufficient to determine Petitioner's mental competence

from the time the limitations period started to run on March 8,

2004 until November 18, 2008, the date the present petition was

filed. On the other hand, Respondent has offered no

countervailing evidence that Petitioner was competent in the years

when the petition should have been filed. Because the record is

insufficiently developed, further facts are needed. See Laws, 351

F.3d at 924.

In light of Petitioner's history of mental illness, the Court

GRANTS Petitioner leave to file a further opposition if he wishes

to make the claim that equitable tolling is warranted because his

mental status affected his ability to file a timely federal habeas

petition. If he does so, he must specify what evidence he has to

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

support this claim. Petitioner must address his mental status

from the time the limitations period began to run on March 8, 2004

until the time he filed his federal habeas petition on November

18, 2008. He should explain how any alleged periods of mental

incompetency affected his ability to file a timely federal habeas

petition and why he was eventually able to file the present

petition on November 18, 2008. He should include any supporting

documents he is able to obtain such as medical records from his

prison file. Respondent may provide countervailing evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Petitioner may file a further opposition to Respondent's

motion to dismiss the petition as untimely no later than March 16,

2010. Should Petitioner fail to file a further opposition, the

Court will grant the motion to dismiss. 

2. If Petitioner chooses to file a further opposition,

Respondent may file a reply, no later than March 26, 2010. 

3. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the

Court, whether by way of formal legal motions or informal letters,

must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to Respondent's counsel. 

4. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/12/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES A YATES et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-05343 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 12, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Chris E. Blake V20819

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8504

D 1 11Low

Coalinga, CA 93210

Dated: February 12, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-05343-CW Document 19 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 7