Gonzales v. People of the State of California
Filing
14
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/08/17 granting 12 Motion for Reconsideration and the judgment dated 4/18/17 is vacated. The order to show cause 8 is discharged. The petition is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules G overning Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as untimely pursuant to 28 USC 2244(d)(1) and on the merits. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and the declines to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH GONZALES,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1886 AC P
v.
ORDER
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
18
19
28 U.S.C. § 2254. He brought this action on September 8, 2015. ECF No. 1. On March 10,
20
2017, after reviewing the petition (ECF No. 5), the court ordered petitioner to show cause why the
21
petition should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 8. Specifically, the court noted that
22
although the petition does not state the date of petitioner’s conviction, review of the California
23
Supreme Court’s docketing system reflects the March 2000 dismissal of a petition for review. Id.
24
at 2.1
Petitioner did not comply with the show cause order within the thirty day deadline, and
25
26
27
28
the court accordingly dismissed the petition on April 18, 2017. ECF No. 9.
1
Attached to the federal petition is documentation of a February 2015 motion in the trial court
for modification of the sentence, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 5 at 7-8.
1
1
Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 12), contending that he did
2
timely submit a response but that it was not processed in time by the clerk of court. Id. at 1. The
3
court notes that an undated document was submitted by petitioner and docketed on April 20,
4
2017, two days after the action was dismissed. Petitioner also attached a document to his motion
5
for reconsideration indicating that he was unable to access the law library during the period from
6
February 20 to April 6, 2017. ECF No. 12 at 2. The court notes that petitioner’s motion for
7
reconsideration, whether grounded in Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
8
Procedure, was filed within the twenty-eight day time limit specified by Federal Appellate Rule 4
9
and is therefore timely. See Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Source, Inc., 716 F.3d 1282, 1285
10
(9th Cir. 2013).
11
In light of petitioner’s submission of a document responsive to the OSC, which appears to
12
have “crossed in the mail” with the court’s order of dismissal, the motion for reconsideration will
13
be granted and the April 20 filing will be considered on the merits of the timeliness question. For
14
the reasons now explained, however, petitioner’s showing fails to provide a basis for equitable
15
tolling or otherwise establish the timeliness of the federal petition.
16
Petitioner has submitted a declaration from another inmate – Michael McCracken – which
17
states that petitioner was unable to understand the procedures to file a timely appeal because he
18
has a below average I.Q. and suffers from dyslexia. ECF No. 11. The court notes that the
19
declaration is signed by petitioner rather than McCracken. Id. at 1. Attached to the declaration is
20
a document purporting to show petitioner’s aptitude test results from 1991. Id. at 2. The
21
document indicates that petitioner had a “raven i.q.” score of 74. Id.
22
To warrant equitable tolling on the basis of mental impairment, a petitioner must show
23
that: (1) his mental impairment was so severe that he either was “unable rationally or factually to
24
personally understand the need to timely file,” or that his mental state “rendered him unable
25
personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing”; and (2) he was diligent in
26
pursuing his claims, “but that the mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing
27
deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available access to
28
assistance.” See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner has not
2
1
made the requisite showing. He has failed to establish that either his I.Q. score or his dyslexia (of
2
which petitioner has provided no medical evidence) rendered him incapable of understanding the
3
need for timely filing or incapable of preparing a petition. Even if the court assumes that
4
petitioner’s intellectual functioning during the relevant period (from the finality of conviction to
5
filing of the federal petition) was consistent with the proffered I.Q. score from 1991, that would
6
not necessarily have rendered him unable to file.
7
Moreover, petitioner has not shown that he was diligent in pursuing his claims during the
8
period between his California Supreme Court filing in 2000,2 and the filing of this case in 2015.
9
Petitioner was informed of the diligence requirement in the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 8 at 3,
10
but has provided no information about the efforts he was making during the relevant period to
11
pursue his rights, including by seeking assistance. The court notes that petitioner was ultimately
12
able to file the instant petition without representation of counsel, and has not indicated that this
13
filing was predicated on any recent change in his mental circumstances. For these reasons, there
14
is no factual basis for equitable tolling and the petition will be dismissed as untimely.
15
The court has considered whether, in an abundance of caution, it should provide petitioner
16
a further opportunity to develop the record regarding equitable tolling. Because it plainly appears
17
from the petition and its attachments that petitioner would not be entitled to relief even if the
18
claim were not time-barred, see Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
19
District Courts, such an opportunity would be an exercise in futility.
20
Petitioner states a single claim for relief: that his prior “strike” finding was supported by
21
insufficient evidence. ECF No. 5 at 4. The one-sentence statement of supporting facts, liberally
22
construed, contends that the prosecutor did not have its evidence of the prior conviction “in hand
23
or under subpoena” at the time the People announced they were ready for trial. Id. This fact, if
24
true, implicates no federal constitutional right. At most, it implicates matters of criminal law and
25
procedure that are within the scope of California law. Accordingly, petitioner’s allegations
26
27
28
2
Petitioner does not contend that there is any basis for a later conviction finality date. The 2015
superior court order that is attached to the petition provides a criminal case number of 95F07960,
ECF No. 5 at 7, which indicates that the case was prosecuted in 1995.
3
1
cannot support federal habeas relief and do not state a cognizable claim. See Middleton v. Cupp,
2
768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal habeas relief is “unavailable for alleged error in the
3
interpretation or application of state law”); see also Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19
4
(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the question whether particular prior conviction qualifies for
5
sentence enhancement under California law is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review).
6
If the court construes petitioner’s claim in this court to incorporate the theories for relief
7
presented to the superior court in 2015, see ECF No. 5 at 7-8 (Order denying Motion for
8
Modification of Sentence, dated June 24, 2015), petitioner fares no better. The superior court
9
summarized petitioner’s challenge to the prior strike finding as follows:
10
On February 6, 2015, defendant filed a “Motion for Modification of
Sentence,” to challenge the imposition of his “third-strike” life
sentence upon him in Case No. 95F07960. He claims the prior
must be entered before committing the new offense, that only one
prior results when one is held to answer on two charges at a
preliminary hearing, that a court cannot rely on a prior conviction to
both augment sentence and provide an element of an offense, no
dual use of a prior for two enhancements, and a trial court has
discretion to strike a “strike prior.”
11
12
13
14
15
16
ECF No. 5 at 7.
These issues involve California’s statutory regime for recidivist sentencing and its
17
implementing procedures, and do not state a federal claim for relief. See Cacoperdo v.
18
Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a decision to impose consecutive
19
sentences did not warrant federal habeas relief because it was purely a matter of state criminal
20
procedure); Rhoades v. Henry, 611 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting petitioner’s
21
arguments related to his sentencing under Idaho law and noting that “violations of state law are
22
not cognizable on federal habeas review.”). Accordingly, it is apparent from review of the
23
petition and attached exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the petition must be
24
dismissed.
25
Finally, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The standard for issuance
26
of a certificate of appealability in a habeas proceeding demands a “substantial showing of the
27
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). The Supreme Court has interpreted 28
28
U.S.C. §2253(c) as follows:
4
1
2
3
Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the
merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward:
The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong.
4
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) the
5
Supreme Court explained that:
6
7
8
9
10
We do not require petitioner to prove, before the issuance of a
COA, that some jurists would grant the petition for habeas corpus.
Indeed, a claim can be debatable even though every jurist of reason
might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case has
received full consideration, that petitioner will not prevail. As we
stated in Slack, “[w]here a district court has rejected the
constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy
§ 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
11
12
Id. at 338. The court has considered petitioner’s claims and determined that they do not meet the
13
standard for issuing a certificate of appealability.
14
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered as follows:
15
1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is hereby GRANTED and the
16
judgement dated April 18, 2017 is VACATED;
17
2. The Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 8) is DISCHARGED;
18
3. The petition is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
19
Cases in the United States District Courts, as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
20
2244(d)(1) and on the merits;
21
4. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and
22
5. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.
23
DATED: June 8, 2017
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?