Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00935-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Martinez
Respondent
Steven R. Rodriguez
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:16-CV-0935-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOEL MARTINEZ,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s unopposed

motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). Respondent argues the instant petition was filed beyond the oneyear statute of limitations and is, therefore, untimely. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and

ammunition, as well as transportation of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled

substance while in possession of a loaded firearm. He was sentenced to a determinate prison

term of eleven years four months. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal stayed

1

Case 2:16-cv-00935-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/18/16 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

petitioner’s sentence on count five and affirmed the judgment and conviction in all other

respects. The California Supreme Court denied direct review on May 14, 2014. Petitioner then

filed the following state post-conviction actions:1

First Petition San Joaquin County Superior Court

Filed August 17, 2015

Denied October 8, 2015

Second Petition California Supreme Court

Filed March 9, 2016

Denied April 28, 2016

The instant federal petition was filed on April 28, 2016.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal habeas corpus petitions must be filed within one year from the later of: (1)

the date the state court judgment became final; (2) the date on which an impediment to filing

created by state action is removed; (3) the date on which a constitutional right is newlyrecognized and made retroactive on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual

predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). Typically, the statute of limitations will begin to run when the state court

judgment becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or expiration of the time to seek direct

review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

/ / /

/ / /

1

In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a pro se

prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed “filed” at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for

mailing to the court. The so-called “prison mailbox rule” has been extended to apply to other

legal documents submitted to the court by prisoners. See e.g. Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d

1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying rule to prisoner’s habeas corpus petition); see also Huizar v.

Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing rule in context of “prisoner who delivers

a document to prison authorities”); Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating

rule in terms of any “legal document” submitted by a pro se prisoner). All filing dates outlined

herein give petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule. 

2

Case 2:16-cv-00935-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/18/16 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

Where a petition for review by the California Supreme Court is filed and no

petition for certiorari is filed in the United States Supreme Court, the one-year limitations period

begins running the day after expiration of the 90-day time within which to seek review by the

United States Supreme Court. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Where a petition for writ of certiorari is filed in the United States Supreme Court, the one-year

limitations period begins to run the day after certiorari is denied or the Court issued a merits

decision. See Wixom v. Washington, 264 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2001). Where no petition for

review by the California Supreme Court is filed, the conviction becomes final 40 days following

the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the limitations period begins running the following day. See

Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2002). If no appeal is filed in the Court of Appeal, the

conviction becomes final 60 days after conclusion of proceedings in the state trial court, and the

limitations period begins running the following day. If the conviction became final before April

24, 1996 – the effective date of the statute of limitations – the one-year period begins to run the

day after the effective date, or April 25, 1996. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th

Cir. 1999).

The limitations period is tolled, however, for the time a properly filed application

for post-conviction relief is pending in the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). To be

“properly filed,” the application must be authorized by, and in compliance with, state law. See

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000); see also Allen v. Siebert, 128 S.Ct. 2 (2007); Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (holding that, regardless of whether there are exceptions to a

state’s timeliness bar, time limits for filing a state post-conviction petition are filing conditions

and the failure to comply with those time limits precludes a finding that the state petition is

properly filed). A state court application for post-conviction relief is “pending”during all the

time the petitioner is attempting, through proper use of state court procedures, to present his

claims. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). It is not, however, considered

“pending” after the state post-conviction process is concluded. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549

3

Case 2:16-cv-00935-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/18/16 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

U.S. 327 (2007) (holding that federal habeas petition not tolled for time during which certiorari

petition to the Supreme Court was pending). Where the petitioner unreasonably delays between

state court applications, however, there is no tolling for that period of time. See Carey v. Saffold,

536 U.S. 214 (2002). If the state court does not explicitly deny a post-conviction application as

untimely, the federal court must independently determine whether there was undue delay. See id.

at 226-27. 

There is no tolling for the interval of time between post-conviction applications

where the petitioner is not moving to the next higher appellate level of review. See Nino, 183

F.3d at 1006-07; see also Dils v. Small, 260 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 2001). There is also no

tolling for the period between different sets of post-conviction applications. See Biggs v.

Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, the period between the conclusion of direct

review and the filing of a state post-conviction application does not toll the limitations period. 

See Nino, 1983 F.3d at 1006-07. 

In this case, petitioner’s conviction became final upon expiration of the 90-day

period to seek review by the United States Supreme Court, or on August 12, 2014. The one-year

limitations period began to run the following day – August 13, 2014. Because petitioner filed

his first state post-conviction action after limitations period ended on August 12, 2015, petitioner

is not entitled to any tolling for the time his state petitioners were pending, or for the time

between state petitions. The instant federal petition – filed on April 28, 2016 – is untimely. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

4

Case 2:16-cv-00935-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/18/16 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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s

unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 17, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:16-cv-00935-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 5