Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03889/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03889-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Russell Delgado
Petitioner
Mike Evans
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH RUSSELL DELGADO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MIKE EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3889 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In

the initial review order the court noted that as to several of his issues petitioner had failed to

adequately allege that his constitutional rights were violated, but also noted that it appeared

that the petition was not timely. The court therefore ordered service on the respondent and

ordered respondent to file a motion to dismiss or a statement that he did not believe the

petition to be untimely, rather than dismissing with leave for petitioner to amend to reframe

some of the issues. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss and petitioner has filed an

opposition and request for a stay. The motion is ready for decision. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent contends that this petition is barred by the statute of limitations. The

statute of limitations is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitions filed by prisoners

challenging non-capital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the

latest of the 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

Case 4:05-cv-03889-PJH Document 13 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

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). Time during

which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. Id. § 2244(d)(2). 

Respondent asserts, and petitioner does not dispute, that he was convicted in 1995

and that direct review was completed on October 7, 1996. The petition thus was due on or

before October 7, 1997. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001)

(adopting what is referred to as the “anniversary method” because, absent any tolling, the

expiration date of the limitation period will be the same date as the triggering event but in

the following year). It was not, however, filed until September 17, 2005, long after

expiration of the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s first state habeas petition was not filed

until 2003, also long after expiration of the limitations period, so did not toll it. See

Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (no statutory tolling under section

2244(d) when limitations period ends before state petition is filed). 

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss petitioner asserts that his petition is not

procedurally barred and that the case should be stayed to allow him to attempt to show

cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice, both of which are exceptions to the

procedural default doctrine. However, the motion to dismiss here is not based upon

procedural bar, but upon untimeliness. Nothing in petitioner’s opposition refutes

respondent’s contention that the petition is grossly untimely. The motion to dismiss will be

granted.

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (document number 9 on the docket) is GRANTED. 

The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/26/07 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\DELGADO889.DSM-SL.wpd

 

Case 4:05-cv-03889-PJH Document 13 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2