Badue v. Sacramento County Superior Court et al

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/10/15 ORDERING that the undersigned finds the petitioners federal habeas petition is untimely, as it was filed beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Cle rk of the Court is directed to update the docket in this action to reflect Jeffrey A. Beard, the current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the appropriate respondent. It is RECOMMENDED that respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 17 ) be granted. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVE BADUE,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-2368-WBS-CMK-P

Petitioner,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

JEFFREY A. BEARD1,

15

Respondents.
/

16
Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ
17
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion
18
to dismiss (Doc. 17), petitioner’s opposition (titled traverse) (Doc. 20), and respondent’s reply
19
(Doc. 21). Petitioner also filed an additional response to the respondent’s reply (Doc. 22). Such
20
a pleading is not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, as petitioner
21
filed his additional response prior to the court’s review of the motion to dismiss, the court has
22
read and considered it.
23
24
1

25
26

Respondent requests the court substitute Jeffrey A. Beard, the current Secretary of
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as respondent in this matter. The
undersigned finds the substitution appropriate, and will direct the Clerk of the Court to update
the docket accordingly. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d).
1

1

I.

2

Petitioner is challenging his 2010 conviction out of the Sacramento County

BACKGROUND

3

Superior Court. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on April 12,

4

2011, but was remanded for imposition of fees and finds, and to correct errors in the abstract of

5

judgment. No timely review was sought in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner filed2 his

6

first state habeas petition on April 9, 2012, which was denied on October 17, 2012. His second

7

state habeas petition was filed on or about May 5, 2014. The current federal petition for writ of

8

habeas corpus was originally filed in this court on November 15, 2013.

9

II.

MOTION TO DISMISS

10

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to

11

dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

12

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

13

Section 2254 Cases. The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in

14

lieu of an answer if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being

15

in violation of the state's procedural rules. See, e.g., O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th

16

Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state

17

remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural

18

grounds to review motion to dismiss for state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. Supp.

19

1189, 1194 & n. 12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss

20

after the court orders a response, and the Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion.

21

See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n.12. The petitioner bears the burden of showing that he has

22

exhausted state remedies. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

23

///

24
25
26

2

The filing dates given provide petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule. See
Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying rule to prisoner’s habeas
corpus petition).
2

1

Respondent brings this motion to dismiss petitioner’s habeas corpus petition as

2

filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Alternatively,

3

respondent contends the current petition is unexhausted. Petitioner appears to argue that his

4

petition is timely, and that he attempted to exhaust his claims at the highest state court.

5

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

6

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

7

created by state action is removed; (3) the date on which a constitutional right is newly-

8

recognized and made retroactive on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

1

Cir. 1999).

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000); see also Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3 (2007); Pace v.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

at 226-27.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

///
4

1

Here, petitioner is challenging his 2010 conviction. Petitioner appealed his

2

conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction on April 12, 2011.3

3

No timely petition for review was filed with the California Supreme Court. Petitioner’s

4

conviction then became final 40 days following the Court of Appeal’s decision, or May 23, 2011,

5

and the statute of limitations commenced. The statute of limitations expired one year later, May

6

22, 2012. However, petitioner filed his state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court

7

on April 9, 2012. This petition was timely, and tolled the statute of limitations until the Court

8

issued its opinion denying the petition on October 17, 2012. Prior to the filing of the petition,

9

322 of the 365 days of the statute of limitations had passed. As the petition was filed with the

10

California Supreme Court, the decision denying the petition concluded the state post-conviction

11

process, and the statute again starting running. Petitioner then had 43 days from the date of the

12

California Supreme Court’s decision to file his federal habeas petition, or until November 29,

13

2012. However, he did not file his federal habeas petition until November 15, 2013, almost a

14

year beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations.

15

Petitioner argues he attempted to file a petition for review in the California

16

Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. However, based on the

17

documents he submitted in support of his opposition, it appears that his attempt to file a petition

18

for review was filed untimely and only after the Court lost jurisdiction to act on his petition. As

19

his petition for review was not filed properly and timely, it did not act to toll the statute of

20

limitations. Similarly, his second state habeas petition filed in the Sacramento County Superior

21

Court on May 5, 2014, does not toll the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations had

22

already expired before that second petition was filed, was in fact filed after the federal habeas

23
3

24
25
26

Petitioner provides a copy of the docket sheet from the Court of Appeal, which
shows the opinion filed on April 12, 2011, and the remittitur issued on June 14, 2011. The date
of the opinion is the operative date, as that is the date the judgment was affirmed. The
corrections ordered to be made by the trial court did not affect the conviction. However, even if
the date the remittitur issued and the appellate case was closed is used to calculate the statute of
limitations, those two months are not enough to make the petition timely.
5

1

petition was filed, and thus it cannot save his federal petition from being barred by the statute of

2

limitations.

3

III.

4

The undersigned finds the petitioner’s federal habeas petition is untimely, as it

5

CONCLUSION

was filed beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations.4

6

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket in this action to reflect

7

Jeffrey A. Beard, the current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

8

Rehabilitation, as the appropriate respondent.

9
10

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends respondent’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 17) be granted.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17
18

DATED: June 10, 2015

19

______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4

As the undersigned finds the petition untimely, it is unnecessary to address
respondent’s alternate basis for dismissal, to determine whether the claims in the petition are
exhausted.
6