Webb v. Junious

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/11/12 recommending that respondent's 03/09/12 motion to dismiss be granted; and this case be closed. MOTION to DISMISS 15 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TERRENCE WEBB,

11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

No. 2:12-cv-0056 JAM CKD P

vs.
MAURICE JUNIOUS,
Respondent.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

16

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

17

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a 2008 Solano County conviction for robbery.

18

Respondent has filed a motion arguing petitioner’s habeas petition is time-barred.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The limitations period applicable to this action may be found at 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1). That statute provides as follows:
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

26
1

1

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from
filing by such State action;

2
3
4
5

(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

6

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.

7

Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Court of

8

Appeal, First Appellate District, on January 7, 2010. Answer, Ex. 1. Because petitioner did not

9

petition for review of that decision in the California Supreme Court, his conviction and sentence

10

became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) 40 days later on February 16, 2010.

11

Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 812-813 (9th Cir. 2002). The limitations period began running

12

the next day, on February 17, 2010, and, absent tolling, it ran out one year later on February 16,

13

2011 well before this action was filed in December, 2011. Petitioner fails to point to any basis

14

for statutory tolling, see 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2), but does assert he is entitled to equitable tolling,

15

The statute of limitations may be subject to equitable tolling if a petitioner can

16

demonstrate that (1) he had been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) some extraordinary

17

circumstance prevented him from filing on time. Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562

18

(2010). Petitioner must show that the “extraordinary circumstance” was the cause of the

19

untimeliness. See Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he threshold

20

necessary to trigger equitable tolling . . . is very high, lest the exception swallow the rule.”

21

Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Miranda v. Castro,

22

292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002).

23

In an affidavit filed by petitioner on August 10, 2012, petitioner asserts he did not

24

learn from his appellate attorney until sometime in March of 2011 that his appeal had been

25

denied when he received word through the mail. Petitioner appears to attribute the delay in

26

receiving notice to the system of delivery rather than a failure of his appellate counsel to mail
2

1

notice promptly. Petitioner also asserts that shortly after he learned his appeal had been denied,

2

he learned the time had expired for filing a petition for review. With the help of an inmate law

3

clerk, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court in late

4

March of 2011 which the court presumes was done in part to exhaust state court remedies which

5

petitioner must do before obtaining relief in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The petition

6

was denied on September 14, 2011. Approximately nine months elapsed between petitioner

7

learning his appeal had been denied and the date he filed his petition in this action. Petitioner

8

does not explain why it took him three months from the denial of his California Supreme Court

9

petition to file here.

10

The court finds that petitioner not receiving word through the mail of the denial of

11

his appeal for some fourteen months is extraordinary. However, petitioner fails to show the

12

extraordinary delay prevented him from filing on time. Petitioner has not shown that he was

13

prevented from learning the date his appeal was denied on his own initiative and early enough to

14

still file his habeas petition on time. Also, petitioner has not demonstrated diligence. While the

15

court would not require that petitioner make inquiries every month as to the status of his appeal

16

to establish diligence, failing to make any inquiry for fourteen months does not amount to

17

diligence. See Drew v. Department of Corrections, 297 F.3d 1278, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002)

18

(lengthy delay between the issuance of a necessary order and an inmate’s receipt of it may

19

provide basis for equitable tolling if the inmate demonstrates he diligently attempted to ascertain

20

the status of the order and the delay prevented the inmate from filing a timely federal habeas

21

petition). Furthermore, a three month delay in filing here after receiving a denial from the

22

California Supreme Court does not amount to diligence without a good explanation for the delay.

23

For all the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend that respondent’s motion

24

to dismiss this action as time-barred be granted.

25

/////

26

/////
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1. Respondent’s March 9, 2012 motion to dismiss be granted; and

3

2. This case be closed.

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

5

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

6

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

7

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

8

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner

9

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of

10

the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district

11

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

12

applicant). Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after

13

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

14

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

15

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16

Dated: September 11, 2012

17

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21

1
webb0056.157

22
23
24
25
26
4