Landa v. Cate

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 7 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BLAS LANDA,

No. C 13-2298 WHA (PR)

Petitioner,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

v.

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

CATE,
(Docket No. 7)

14

Respondent.
/

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas case under 28

18

U.S.C. 2254. Respondent was ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

19

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Petitioner has not

20

opposed the motion despite having the opportunity to do so. For the reasons discussed below,

21

respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

22
23

STATEMENT
The following facts are not disputed by the parties. On March 2, 2009, a jury found

24

petitioner guilty of continuous sexual abuse pursuant to California Penal Code Section 288.5(a).

25

On April 24, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 12 years in state prison. The

26

judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on August 31, 2010, and the

27

California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on December 15, 2010. Petitioner did

28

not seek further review of the judgment in the United States Supreme Court, nor did he seek

1

habeas relief in the state courts. The instant petition is deemed filed on the date it was signed,

2

on May 10, 2013. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, (1988); Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d

3

569, 575 (9th Cir. 2000).

4

ANALYSIS

5

Respondent contends that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Under the

6

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), prisoners challenging non-

7

capital state convictions or sentences must file petitions for relief within one year of the date on

8

which the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for

9

seeking direct review.1 Petitioner did not seek direct review in the United States Supreme
Court, and his time for doing so expired on March 15, 2011, 90 days after the California

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Supreme Court denied his petition for review. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13. Thus, his judgment

12

became final on that date, and the limitations period expired one year later on March 15, 2012.

13

See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002). The instant petition is deemed

14

filed on May10, 2013, over one year later after the limitations period expired. Tolling under

15

Section 2244(d)(2) is not available because petitioner did not file “an application for state post-

16

conviction or other collateral review” of his judgment. Ibid. Finally, petitioner does not assert

17

that he is entitled to equitable tolling or that dismissing the petition as untimely would be a

18

"miscarriage of justice," nor does the record support drawing either of these conclusions. See

19

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1931-32 (2013) (miscarriage of justice exception to

20

untimely petition requires showing of actual innocence); Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549,

21

2560 (2010) (equitable tolling allowed if prisoner has been pursuing his rights diligently and

22

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way). Accordingly, the instant petition must be

23

dismissed as untimely.

24
25
26
27
28

Section 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) provide alternate triggering dates upon which the
limitations period may begin: (B) the date on which an impediment to filing an application
created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner
from filing; (C) 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 (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence. The parties do not seek to apply these provisions to this case,
however, nor is there any basis to do so..
1

2

1
2
3
4

CONCLUSION
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 7) is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DISMISSED.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to

5

rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in

6

which the petition is denied. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a

7

reasonable jurist would find the dismissal of his petition as untimely debatable or wrong. Slack

8

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is

9

warranted in this case.
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: December

16

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3