Robertson v. Santoro

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen 21 Dismissing Some Claims and Setting Briefing Schedule for Other Claims. Respondent's Habeas Answer due by 3/6/2020. Petitioner's Traverse due by 4/3/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES D. ROBERTSON,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04201-EMC
ORDER DISMISSING SOME CLAIMS
AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR OTHER CLAIMS

v.
KELLY SANTORO,

Docket No. 21

Respondent.

12
13
I.

14
15

INTRODUCTION

Charles Robertson, a pro se prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus to

16

challenge his 2013 murder conviction. He sought and obtained a stay of this action so that he

17

could return to state court to exhaust state judicial remedies for some unexhausted claims. He

18

later filed a second amended petition containing ten claims, three of which were newly exhausted.

19

Respondent now moves to dismiss the three newly exhausted claims on the ground of

20

untimeliness. Mr. Robertson opposes the motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the

21

Court will dismiss the three newly exhausted claims as barred by the statute of limitations and will

22

set a briefing schedule so that the parties may address the merits of the other claims in the second

23

amended petition.

24

II.

BACKGROUND

25

Mr. Robertson was convicted in 2013 in the San Francisco County Superior Court of first

26

degree murder and was found to have personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the

27

offense. He was sentenced to a total of 26 years to life in prison.

28

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction on May

1

18, 2016. Docket No. 22-16 at 176. The California Supreme Court denied review on August 24,

2

2016. Docket No. 22-16 at 246.
Mr. Robertson then filed several petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state courts, and

3
4

commenced this action while he was also pursuing relief in the state courts.
On or about June 8, 2017, Mr. Robertson constructively filed a petition for writ of habeas

5
6

corpus in the San Francisco County Superior Court.1 (State Petition # 1.) The petition was denied

7

on July 25, 2017. Docket no. 22-16 at 261-62.

8

On July 10, 2017, Mr. Robertson constructively filed his federal petition for writ of habeas

9

corpus. The petition contained ten claims. This Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend
on October 16, 2017, because Mr. Robertson had not alleged facts in support of Claims 7-10,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

which also were unexhausted. Docket No. 7. Mr. Robertson then constructively filed a first

12

amended petition on December 28, 2017, that dropped his unexhausted claims and requested a

13

stay so that he could exhaust state court remedies for Claims 7-10. Docket No. 11. This Court

14

granted a stay of the proceedings under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), on

15

March 26, 2018, so that Mr. Robertson could return to state court. Docket No. 12.
Meanwhile, on December 28, 2017, Mr. Robertson had constructively filed a petition for

16
17

writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. (State Petition # 2.) The petition was

18

denied on January 11, 2018. Docket No. 22-16 at 300.
On March 16, 2018, Mr. Robertson constructively filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19
20

in the California Supreme Court. (State Petition # 3.) The petition was denied on July 11, 2018.

21

Id. at 331.
On January 29, 2019, Mr. Robertson constructively filed another petition for writ of habeas

22
23

corpus in the California Supreme Court. (State Petition # 4.) The petition was denied on June 12,

24

2019. See Docket No. 22-16 at 376.

25
26
27
28

1

This Court applies the prisoner mailbox rule to determine the relevant filing dates. See Stillman
v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (document is deemed filed when it is given by
an unrepresented prisoner to prison officials to mail it to the court). Because Mr. Robertson was
an unrepresented prisoner, the Court uses the date Mr. Robertson gave the document to prison
officials to mail to the court as the constructive filing date. Thus, many of the filing dates in this
chronology do not match the date the petition was actually stamped “filed” in a court.
2

Having finished his efforts to exhaust in the state courts, Mr. Robertson constructively

1
2

filed a second amended petition in federal court on July 11, 2019, adding the now-exhausted

3

Claims 7, 8, and 10. Docket No. 13.2
The Court reviewed the second amended petition, lifted the stay, and ordered respondent to

4
5

show cause why the second amended petition should not be granted. Docket No. 14.
Robertson’s second amended petition presents the following claims: (1) the trial court’s

6

denial of a defense motion challenging the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to an African-

8

American prospective juror violated Robertson’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and equal

9

protection of the laws; (2) Robertson’s due process right to present a complete defense was

10

violated when the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s convictions and the victim’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

statement that he wanted to buy a knife; (3) Robertson’s right to due process was violated by the

12

admission of evidence that he was a pimp, that Delona Jacobs was his prostitute, and that he had

13

hit Jacobs; (4) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument violated Robertson’s right to a

14

fair trial and an impartial jury; (5) cumulative error; (6) Robertson’s right to due process was

15

violated because the evidence was insufficient to show the premeditation and deliberation

16

necessary to convict him of first-degree murder; (7) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance

17

by failing to investigate and present a defense of “diminished capacity and mental defect,” Docket

18

No. 13 at 98; (8) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue on appeal

19

that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding Robertson’s mental state; (9)

20

Robertson’s right to due process was violated by the admission of evidence of Robertson’s prior

21

domestic violence and pimping; and (10) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to

22

communicate to Robertson a favorable plea offer.
III.

23

DISCUSSION

24

Respondent moves to dismiss Claims 7, 8, and 10 of the second amended petition on the

25

ground that they are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), as amended by the Antiterrorist and

26
27
28

2

Claim 9 repeats Claim 3: both assert that the admission of evidence that Mr. Robertson was a
pimp and engaged in domestic violence violated his right to due process. Claim 9 is dismissed as
duplicative of Claim 3.
3

1

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Respondent argues that Claims 1-6 are timely

2

because they were exhausted and in the original petition filed before the one-year statute of

3

limitations period expired. Respondent argues that Claims 7, 8, and 10 are time-barred because

4

the limitations period expired before the second amended petition containing Claims 7, 8, and 10

5

was filed. The first matter to decide is whether Claims 7, 8, and 10 relate back to Claims 1-6 in

6

the original petition because, if they do, they would be timely as the original petition was timely.

7

If they do not relate back, the Court must determine whether the second amended petition

8

containing Claims 7, 8, and 10 was filed before the expiration of the one-year limitations period.

9

A.

10

Claims 7, 8, and 10 Do Not Relate Back To The Original Petition
A claim that is first presented in an amended petition filed after the one-year statute of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

limitations has expired relates back to the date of the original petition only if the claim in the

12

amended petition arises out of the “‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’” contained in the original

13

petition. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2)). “An

14

amended habeas petition . . . does not relate back (and thereby escape AEDPA’s one-year time

15

limit) when it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type

16

from those the original pleading set forth.” Id. at 650 (new coerced-confession claim did not relate

17

back to the original petition that raised only a factually distinct Confrontation Clause claim).

18

Mayle explicitly rejected the proposition that the “same ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’

19

[means the] same ‘trial, conviction, or sentence.’” Id. at 664. Only if the original and amended

20

petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of operative facts will the new claim in an

21

amended petition relate back to the filing date of the original petition. See id. at 664-65. Compare

22

Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 511, 519-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court properly denied leave to

23

amend petition to add claims arising out of alleged misconduct of the prosecutors in another case

24

against defendant based on FBI lab testing because those claims did not relate back to other timely

25

filed claims about police questioning at the time of his arrest, jailhouse informant testimony, and

26

judicial bias), and Hebner v. McGrath, 543 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court did

27

not err by denying leave to amend petition where original claim challenged admission of evidence

28

at trial and new claim challenged jury instruction concerning consideration of that evidence; they
4

1

were two discrete occurrences dependent upon separate transactions not sharing a common core of

2

operative facts), with Valdovinos v. McGrath, 598 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2010), judgment

3

vacated on other grounds, Horel v. Valdovinos, 562 U.S. 1196 (2011) (Brady claim in amended

4

petition related back to Brady claim in original petition where revision added newly discovered

5

evidence that had not been disclosed by prosecutor; both the original and amended claims were

6

“of the same type” in that both pertained to suppressed exculpatory evidence the government had

7

in its file), and id. at 575-76 (ineffective assistance of counsel claim in amended petition related

8

back to ineffective assistance of counsel claim in original petition where both claims pertained to

9

counsel’s alleged failure to adequately investigate suppressed exculpatory evidence upon learning

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

of it and amended claim “simply adds more evidence that counsel did not uncover”).
When considering whether a newly exhausted claim in an amended petition relates back to

12

the original petition, only the exhausted claims in the original petition are considered. “The only

13

sensible interpretation of Mayle is that it requires new claims to relate back to claims properly

14

contained in the original petition—that is, those claims that were exhausted at the time of filing.”

15

King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2009). When, as here, the newly exhausted claims

16

were contained in the original petition but later were dismissed because they were unexhausted

17

(and had to be dismissed to obtain a Kelly stay for the petitioner to return to state court), the

18

district court only determines whether the newly exhausted claims relate back to the claims in the

19

original petition that were exhausted at the time the original petition was filed. See King, 564 F.3d

20

at 1142 (rejecting argument that Mayle was satisfied where nine newly exhausted claims in the

21

amended petition were the same nine claims that were in the original petition as unexhausted

22

claims).

23

Upon comparing Claims 7, 8, and 10 in the second amended petition with Claims 1-6 in

24

the original petition, the Court concludes that Claims 7, 8, and 10 do not relate back because they

25

do not arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” as any of the six claims in the

26

original petition that were properly exhausted at the time the original petition was filed. Claim 7

27

asserts ineffective assistance (IAC) of trial counsel in failing to investigate and present mental-

28

state evidence; Claim 8 asserts IAC by appellate counsel for failing to raise trial counsel’s IAC
5

1

regarding the mental-state evidence; and Claim 10 asserts IAC of trial counsel in failing to

2

communicate a favorable plea offer. The exhausted claims in the original petition have no

3

common core of operative facts with these three IAC claims in the second amended petition. And

4

none of the three claims is an IAC overlay to another claim asserted in the original petition.
For these reasons, Claims 7, 8, and 10 do not relate back to the original petition.

5
6

Therefore, the next matter to determine is whether the second amended petition in which Claims 7,

7

8, and 10 were first properly asserted was timely filed.

8

B.

9

Claims 7, 8, and 10 Are Untimely
Petitions filed by prisoners challenging noncapital state convictions or sentences must be

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

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if

14

the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral

15

review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise

16

of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

17

The limitations period in this case began when the judgment became final upon “the

18

expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). “[W]hen a

19

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

20

one-year limitations period begins to run on the date the ninety-day period defined by Supreme

21

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

22

Supreme Court denied Mr. Robertson’s petition for review on August 24, 2016. His conviction

23

became final 90 days thereafter, on November 22, 2016, because he did not petition the U.S.

24

Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. See Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 39 (2011) (“Finality

25

occurs when direct state appeals have been exhausted and a petition for writ of certiorari from this

26

Court has become time barred or has been disposed of”); see also Cal. Rule of Court 8.366(b),

27

8.500(e).

28

The one-year limitations period can be equitably tolled because § 2244(d) is not
6

1

jurisdictional. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). “[A] litigant seeking equitable

2

tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights

3

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Id. at 655 (quoting

4

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1153

5

(9th Cir. 2006). Mr. Robertson offers no reason to equitably toll the limitations period.

6

The limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a federal petition for writ of

7

habeas corpus. See King (citing Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001)). The filing of the

8

original federal petition in July 2017 did not toll the limitations period as to Claims 7, 8, and 10

9

because those three claims were not exhausted at the time the original petition was filed and were
not properly included in that original petition. Additionally, Mr. Robertson dismissed those

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claims as part of his effort to obtain a stay under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, to exhaust his state

12

court remedies.

13

The one-year limitations period can be tolled statutorily for the “time during which a

14

properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

15

pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A state habeas petition is

16

considered pending not only for the time the case is open on the docket of some court, but also for

17

the time period between state habeas petitions if the petitioner files the later state habeas petition at

18

a higher level court and does so “within what California would consider a ‘reasonable time.’”

19

Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 197-98 (2006); Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002).

20

This limitation applies even if the state court does not expressly impose a time bar. Evans, 546

21

U.S. at 197-98. Evans found that most states require a petitioner to proceed to a higher court

22

within 30-60 days of a denial by a lower court, and held that the six-month delay in that case was

23

unreasonable. Id. at 201. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit has held that delays of 81 days and up

24

generally do not result in tolling for the gap between the denial of a petition by one state court and

25

the filing of a later petition at a higher level state court. See, e.g., Velasquez v. Kirkland, 639 F.3d

26

964, 968 (9th Cir. 2011) (91- and 81-day gaps not tolled); Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 935-36

27

(9th Cir. 2014) (delay of 100 days with no showing of good cause is an unreasonable delay);

28

Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (delay of 146 days between successive petitions
7

1

is not reasonable, so later petition not “timely filed”); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048

2

(9th Cir. 2010) (unexplained, and hence unjustified, delays of 115 and 101 days between

3

California habeas petitions were not reasonable).

4
5
6

Mr. Robertson is entitled to some statutory tolling for several of his state habeas petitions,
but not enough time is tolled to make Claims 7, 8, and 10 timely.
The one-year limitations period began on November 23, 2016, after his conviction became

7

final, and ran unabated for 198 days, until June 8, 2017, when Mr. Robertson constructively filed

8

State Petition # 1. The limitations period was tolled from June 8, 2017, until the petition was

9

denied on July 25, 2017. See § 2244(d)(2).

10

The one-year limitations period resumed running on July 26, 2017, and ran unabated for

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

another 156 days, until December 28, 2017, when Mr. Robertson constructively filed State

12

Petition # 2. Mr. Robertson is not entitled to tolling for the 156-day gap between the denial of

13

State Petition # 1 and the filing of State Petition # 2 because it is too long a period of time to be

14

considered a reasonable amount of time to proceed to the next level, and he made no attempt to

15

justify his delay in state court. See Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048. In response to the question on the

16

state form asking him to explain any delay, Mr. Robertson offered no excuse and instead stated

17

that his petition “is timely.” Docket No. 22-16 at 279 (response to question 15).

18

The limitations period was tolled during the pendency of State Petition # 2 and during the

19

pendency of State Petition # 3. Respondent concedes that the limitations period also was tolled for

20

the 64-day gap between those two petitions. See Docket No. 21 at 5 & n.3. This results in tolling

21

from December 28, 2017, when State Petition # 2 was filed, until July 11, 2018, when State

22

Petition # 3 was denied.

23

The limitations period resumed running on July 12, 2018, and expired 11 days later, on

24

July 22, 2018, as that was the day that 365 days of untolled time had passed since the conclusion

25

of direct review. Had the limitations period not expired after 11 days of untolled time, the

26

limitations period would have run unabated for 202 days, until January 29, 2019, when Mr.

27

Robertson constructively filed State Petition # 4. Mr. Robertson is not entitled to tolling for any

28

part of the gap between the denial of State Petition # 3 and the filing of State Petition # 4 because
8

1
2

the 202-day delay was an unreasonable and unjustified delay. See Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048.
Had the limitations period not expired on July 22, 2018, the limitations period would have

3

been tolled during the pendency of State Petition # 4 from January 29, 2019, until June 12, 2019,

4

when the petition was denied. And had the limitations period not expired, the limitations period

5

would have resumed running on June 13, 2019, and run unabated for another 29 days until July

6

11, 2019, when Mr. Robertson constructively filed the second amended petition containing Claims

7

7, 8, and 10 in this Court.

8

In sum, Mr. Robertson receives no equitable tolling; only statutory tolling applies for the
state petitions filed before his limitations period expired. His one-year limitations period expired

10

on July 22, 2018, as that was the date on which 365 days (198 + 156 + 11 days) of untolled time

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

had passed since his conviction became final upon the conclusion of direct review on

12

November 22, 2016.

13

Mr. Robertson argues in his opposition that he is entitled to relief from his procedural

14

default because he was not represented by an attorney during state habeas proceedings. See

15

Docket No. 23 (citing Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012)). His reliance on Martinez is

16

misplaced because it does not pertain to the timeliness of a petition. “[T]he equitable rule in

17

Martinez ‘applies only to the issue of cause to excuse the procedural default of an ineffective

18

assistance of trial counsel claim that occurred in a state collateral proceeding’ and ‘has no

19

application to the operation or tolling of the § 2244(d) statute of limitations’ for filing a § 2254

20

petition.” Lambrix v. Secretary, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 756 F.3d 1246, 1249 (11th Cir. 2014); see

21

also Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 630 (11th Cir. 2014) (“As our discussion shows, the

22

Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims

23

and does not apply to AEDPA's statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”). The Martinez

24

citation and procedural default discussion offered in Mr. Robertson’s opposition are to no avail

25

because Respondent does not argue that the claims are procedurally defaulted; instead he argues

26

the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

27

Mr. Robertson’s second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on July 11, 2019

28

– the pleading that first contained the properly exhausted Claims 7, 8, and 10 -- was filed almost a
9

1

year after the federal habeas statute of limitations period expired on July 22, 2018. Claims 7, 8,

2

and 10 therefore must be dismissed as untimely.
IV.

3

CONCLUSION

4

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Docket No. 21. Claims 7, 8, and 10 are

5

dismissed because the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus containing those three

6

claims was not filed before the expiration of the habeas statute of limitations period.

7

With the dismissal of Claims 7, 8, and 10 as untimely, and the dismissal of Claim 9 as

8

duplicative of Claim 3 (see footnote 2), only Claims 1-6 in the second amended petition remain for

9

adjudication. The Court now sets the following briefing schedule for Claims 1-6: Respondent
must file and serve his answer or other response no later than March 6, 2020. Petitioner must file

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and serve his traverse no later than April 3, 2020.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: February 7, 2020

16
17
18

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10