Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04019/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04019-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melton Lee Myers
Petitioner
R. L. Subia
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

No. C 09-4019 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 7/9/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MELTON LEE MYERS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. L. SUBIA, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-4019 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

state prisoner. For the reasons discussed herein, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition

as untimely (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND

In 1997, an Alameda Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of three counts of

committing a lewd act on a child, one count of penetration with a foreign object of a child

under the age of fourteen, and one count of distributing obscene material. (Ans., Ex. 1 at 2.)

The trial court sentenced petitioner to a total term of 285 years in prison. (Id.) The state

appellate court affirmed the convictions, though it did modify the sentence. (Id. at 3.) The

Case 3:09-cv-04019-RS Document 9 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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

No. C 09-4019 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

state supreme court denied petitioner’s petition for review. (Id., Ex. 3.) 

Petitioner then filed state habeas petitions. The state superior and appellate courts

denied his petitions in 2002. (Id., Exs. 4 & 5.) Five years later, in August 2007, petitioner

again filed a habeas petition in the state superior court, which denied the petition in October

2007. (Id., Ex. 6.) Petitioner’s subsequently filed habeas petitions, filed in 2008 in the state

appellate and supreme courts, were denied. (Id., Exs. 7 & 9.) Petitioner filed the instant

federal habeas petition on August 28, 2009. Respondent contends that the petition is

untimely, and therefore barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Motion to Dismiss

(“MTD”) at 1.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which

applies to every federal habeas petition filed on or after April 24, 1996, contains a statute of

limitations codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Federal habeas petitions must be filed within

one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the judgment became final after the

conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct review; (2) an impediment

to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action

prevented petitioner from filing; (3) 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 (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have

been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). “[W]hen

a petitioner fails to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, the

AEDPA’s one-year limitations period begins to run on the date the ninety-day period defined

by Supreme Court Rule 13 expires.” Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). 

B. Timeliness of the Petition

According to the record, petitioner was convicted on January 29, 1997. The state

appellate court affirmed the conviction on direct review on October 2, 2000. The state

Case 3:09-cv-04019-RS Document 9 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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

No. C 09-4019 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

supreme court denied the petition for direct review on November 17, 2001. Petitioner’s right

to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court expired ninety days later, on February 15, 2002. 

Accordingly, petitioner had until February 16, 2003 to file a timely federal habeas petition. 

The instant federal habeas petition was filed on August 8, 2009, which was past the February

16, 2003 deadline. Accordingly, absent statutory or equitable tolling, the federal habeas

petition is untimely, and must be dismissed. 

C. Statutory and Equitable Tolling

1. Statutory Tolling

For purposes of statutory tolling, the time during which a properly filed application

for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year

limitations period. See § 2244(d)(2). A state habeas petition filed after AEDPA’s statute of

limitations ended, however, cannot toll the limitation period. See Ferguson v. Palmateer,

321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[S]ection 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the

limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed,” even if the state petition

was timely filed). Section 2244(d)(2) cannot “revive” the limitation period once it has run

(i.e., restart the clock to zero); it can only serve to pause a clock that has not yet fully run. 

“Once the limitations period is expired, collateral petitions can no longer serve to avoid the

statute of limitations.” Rashid v. Kuhlmann, 991 F. Supp. 254, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 

In the instant matter, statutory tolling does not save the petition. As stated above,

petitioner had until February 16, 2003 to file a timely federal habeas petition. The statute of

limitations was tolled while petitioner was pursuing his first round of state habeas relief in

2002. The last petition, however, was denied on June 4, 2002. At such time, the statute of

limitations started to run again, and expired on February 16, 2003, petitioner having failed to

file for other state habeas relief or federal habeas relief until August 2007. The August 2007

state habeas petition no longer served to toll the limitations period. “Once the limitations

period is expired, collateral petitions can no longer serve to avoid the statute of limitations.” 

Rashid, 991 F. Supp. 254 at 259. 

Case 3:09-cv-04019-RS Document 9 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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

No. C 09-4019 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner appears to contend that his petition should not be regarded as untimely

because his sentence is unconstitutional, based as it was on assumptions about his criminal

record that were materially untrue. (Opp. to MTD at 2.) Petitioner, however, has not shown

that the factual predicate of this claim could not have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence. Because petitioner filed his state habeas petitions after AEDPA’s statute of

limitations ended, he is not entitled to statutory tolling. Absent equitable tolling, the petition

must be dismissed as untimely. 

2. Equitable Tolling

Petitioner has not alleged, nor, certainly, presented any arguments, that he is entitled

to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED as untimely. 

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely (Docket No. 7) is

GRANTED. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

This order terminates Docket No. 7. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, terminate the pending motion,

and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2010 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04019-RS Document 9 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 4