Chaney v. Kramer et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 11 Motion to Dismiss (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2010)

Download PDF
Chaney v. Kramer et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 trial by jury. On February 16, 2008, pro se Petitioner William Chaney, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the validity of his incarceration. Respondent opposition. opposition. filed a motion to dismiss. Respondent filed a reply. Petitioner filed an Petitioner filed another v. M.C. KRAMER, Warden, Respondent. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM CHANEY, Petitioner, No. 08-01230 CW ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Having considered all the papers submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND On September 18, 1990, Petitioner William Chaney proceeded to On October 25, 1990, the jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. similarly convicted. Petitioner's co-defendant was On January 11, 1991, Petitioner was sentenced Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to twenty-five years to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and to eleven years, eight months in prison consecutively for the attempted first degree murder conviction. On February 19, 1991, Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the California court of appeal. court's judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial On March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition On for a writ of habeas corpus in the California court of appeal. March 8, 2007, the appellate court denied the petition on the ground that Petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for his delay of over fifteen years in seeking relief and failed to show that his petition should be considered under an exception to the requirement that habeas relief be timely sought. Also, the appellate court instructed Petitioner to file his claim regarding the conditions of his confinement in the proper venue, namely, in Sacramento County, the county of his confinement. Instead, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on January 23, 2008. On February 16, 2008, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition, alleging one claim based on the conditions of his confinement and four claims based on constitutional violations at his 1990 trial. DISCUSSION Respondent moves to dismiss Petitioner's first claim on the grounds that it is not cognizable on habeas review and is barred by procedural default, and moves to dismiss Petitioner's four constitutional claims on the grounds that they are barred by the statute of limitations. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. Petitioner's Prison Placement Score Petitioner claims that the Folsom State Prison Classification Committee improperly elevated his prison placement score from nineteen to twenty-eight based on his murder conviction and, as a result, placed him in a level three security facility. seeks to decrease his placement score. A federal court may entertain a habeas petition from a state prisoner "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). In Preiser v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court Petitioner addressed the intersection between 1983 and writs of habeas corpus and held that "when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical confinement," and where "the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment," the prisoner's "sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 411 Conversely, "a 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody." Id. at 499. Because Petitioner does not alleges that his elevated placement score affects the fact or duration of his imprisonment, it is not a cognizable claim for habeas relief. motion to dismiss this claim is granted.1 Thus, Respondent's Because Petitioner's claim is not cognizable as a federal habeas claim, the Court need not address Respondent's argument that it is barred by procedural default. 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. Petitioner's Constitutional Claims Based on the 1990 Trial The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides a one-year statute of limitations in which to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). For state prisoners who were convicted before AEDPA's enactment, the statute of limitations began to run on the day after Congress enacted it: April 24, 1996. (9th Cir. 2002). Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955 As such, Petitioner had until April 24, 1997 to file his petition. Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 20, 2008, nearly eleven years after the statute of limitations had run. Petitioner does not claim that his petition should be considered under an exception to the requirement that habeas relief be timely sought. His petition is therefore time-barred. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner's constitutional claims is granted. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. file. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the Dated: July 28, 2010 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 4

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?