Barker v. Palmer
Filing
16
ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. The clerk of Court shall Enter Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/31/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
CURTIS BARKER,
12
13
14
15
16
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN PALMER, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
2:11-cv-00440-JCM-CWH
ORDER
17
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
18
by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the court is respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF
19
No. 7).
20
I. Procedural History
21
On June 30, 2000, petitioner was indicted and charged with murder with the use of a deadly
22
weapon and robbery with use of a deadly weapon. (Exhibit 4). Petitioner went to trial and the jury
23
found him guilty of murder in the first degree with the use of a deadly weapon, but not guilty of
24
robbery. (Exhibit 31). The state district court conducted a penalty hearing and the jury returned a
25
sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. (Exhibits 34). A judgment of conviction
26
1
was filed on April 24, 2001, sentencing petitioner to two consecutive terms of life in prison without
2
the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and the enhancement for the use of a deadly
3
weapon. (Exhibit 37).
4
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on May 31, 2001. (Exhibit 38). On direct appeal, in
5
an opinion dated July 11, 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed petitioner’s conviction and
6
remanded the case to the state district court for further proceedings. (Exhibit 56).
7
On remand in the state district court, petitioner and the state negotiated a resolution of the
8
case. Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to one count of first degree murder, and the state agreed to
9
drop the deadly weapon enhancement and stipulated to a single life sentence with the possibility of
10
parole after twenty years was served. (Exhibit 64A). The state district court accepted the plea
11
agreement, imposed the sentence agreed upon, and entered an amended judgment of conviction, filed
12
January 16, 2003. (Exhibit 66). Petitioner did not pursue an appeal of the amended judgment.
13
On February 2, 2010, more than seven years after the state district court’s entry of the
14
amended judgment of conviction, petitioner filed a post-conviction habeas corpus petition in state
15
district court. (Exhibit 68). Petitioner asserted two grounds for relief in his state habeas petition.
16
First, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel advising him to plead guilty
17
“without first advising [Barker] of his statutory right to the insanity defense, without first obtaining a
18
psychiatrist to evaluate [Barker’s] mental state at the time of the alleged crime, and without first
19
obtaining a psychiatrist to assist him in the evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the insanity
20
defense/and or to assist at sentencing.” (Exhibit 68, at pp. 8-9). In the second ground, petitioner
21
asserted ineffective assistance of counsel because “trial counsel knowingly allowed Barker to plead
22
guilty while he was mentally incompetent.” (Exhibit 68, at p. 10). The state moved to dismiss the
23
petition, and petitioner opposed. (Exhibits 71 & 72). By written order filed September 24, 2010, the
24
state district court denied the petition as untimely under NRS 34.726 and barred by latches under
25
NRS 34.800. (Exhibit 73). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2000. (Exhibit 75).
26
2
1
On February 9, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court filed an order affirming the state district court’s
2
denial of the petition. (Exhibit 82). Remittitur issued on March 15, 2011.
3
Petitioner dispatched his federal habeas corpus petition to this court on March 18, 2011.
4
(ECF No. 5, at p. 1). Petitioner’s federal petition contains the same two claims raised in his state
5
habeas petition. (ECF No. 5 at pp. 3-6; Exhibit 68, at pp. 8-10). Respondents have filed a motion to
6
dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 7). Petitioner has filed no response to the motion to dismiss. The
7
certificate of service attached to respondents’ motion to dismiss indicates that respondents served
8
petitioner with the motion to dismiss at his address of record, at the Northern Nevada Correctional
9
Center. (ECF No. 7, at p. 6).
10
II. Discussion
11
A. Petition is Untimely under the AEDPA
12
Respondents argue that the federal habeas petition filed in this court is untimely. The
13
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) amended the statutes controlling federal
14
habeas corpus practice to include a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal habeas
15
corpus petitions. With respect to the statute of limitations, the habeas corpus statute provides:
16
17
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application
for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from
the latest of–
18
19
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time
for seeking such review;
20
21
22
23
24
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an
application created by State action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
25
26
3
1
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
2
3
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the
pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted
toward any period of limitations under this subsection.
4
5
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
6
The United States Supreme Court has held that a habeas petitioner’s state post-conviction
7
petition, which was rejected by the state court as untimely under the statute of limitations, is not
8
“properly filed,” within the meaning of the statutory tolling provision of the AEDPA limitations
9
period. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 412-16 (2005). The Court in Pace v. DiGuglielmo held
10
as follows:
11
12
In common understanding, a petition filed after a time limit, and which
does not fit within any exceptions to that limit, is no more “properly filed” than a
petition filed after a time limit that permits no exception.
13
***
14
15
What we intimated in Saffold we now hold: When a postconviction
petition is untimely under state law, “that [is] the end of the matter” for the
purposes of § 2244(d)(2).
16
Id. at 413-14.
17
In the present case, the state district court entered petitioner’s amended judgment of
18
conviction on January 16, 2003. (Exhibit 66). Because petitioner did not file a notice of appeal after
19
the entry of the amended judgment of conviction, his conviction became final for purposes of the
20
AEDPA on February 15, 2003. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 652-56 (2012) (when a
21
petitioner does not pursue a direct appeal, his conviction becomes final for purposes of the AEDPA
22
when the time for obtaining review in the state courts expires); see also Nev. R. App. P. 4(b)(1(A)
23
(criminal defendant has “30 days after entry of the judgment” to file a notice of appeal, which vests
24
the Nevada Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction). Pursuant to the AEDPA, petitioner then had
25
26
4
1
one year, until February 15, 2004, to file the federal habeas petition, unless the time was otherwise
2
tolled by federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1),(2).
3
A properly filed state post-conviction petition tolls the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 2244(d)(2). A state post-conviction petition that violates the state statute of limitations is not
5
“properly filed” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 412-
6
16 (2005). Petitioner filed the state post-conviction habeas petition on February 2, 2010. (Exhibit
7
68). The state district court denied the petition as untimely under NRS 34.726 and barred by latches
8
under NRS 34.800. (Exhibit 73). The Nevada Supreme Court’s order of affirmance held that
9
petitioner’s state habeas petition was untimely pursuant to NRS 34.726 and barred by latches under
10
NRS 34.8000. (Exhibit 82). Thus, petitioner’s February 2, 2010 state habeas petition was not a
11
“properly filed application” that would toll the AEDPA statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 2244(d)(2). The time period during which petitioners’ state habeas petition was pending in state
13
court is not statutorily tolled.
14
Petitioner dispatched the federal habeas petition to this court on March 18, 2011.1 (ECF No.
15
5, at p. 1). As stated above, the AEDPA statute of limitations expired on February 15, 2004. The
16
federal petition is untimely by over seven years. The untimely federal petition is subject to
17
dismissal, absent equitable tolling.
18
The United States Supreme Court has held that the AEDPA’s statute of limitations “is subject
19
to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.” Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010). The
20
Supreme Court reiterated that “a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows: ‘(1) that
21
he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his
22
way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544
23
U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). In making a determination on equitable tolling, courts must “exercise
24
1
25
The federal petition indicates that petitioner mailed his petition on March 18, 2011. (ECF No.
5, at p. 1). Pursuant to the “mailbox rule,” federal courts deem the filing date of a document as the date
that it was given to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).
26
5
1
judgment in light of prior precedent, but with awareness of the fact that specific circumstances, often
2
hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case.” Holland, 130
3
S.Ct. at 2563.
4
In the instant case, petitioner did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. As such,
5
petitioner did not present this court with arguments for equitable tolling. On review of the petition, it
6
also does not provide any explanation or argument for equitable tolling. (ECF No. 5). Petitioner has
7
failed to make any showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that any extraordinary
8
circumstance prevented him from filing a timely federal petition. Petitioner is not entitled to
9
equitable tolling and the petition must be dismissed as untimely.
10
B. Petition is Procedurally Barred
11
Respondents further argue that all claims in the petition were procedurally defaulted in state
12
13
14
court, and therefore are barred from review by this court.
1. Procedural Default Principles
“Procedural default” refers to the situation where a petitioner in fact presented a claim to the
15
state courts but the state courts disposed of the claim on procedural grounds, instead of on the merits.
16
A federal court will not review a claim for habeas corpus relief if the decision of the state court
17
regarding that claim rested on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and
18
adequate to support the judgment. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730-31 (1991).
19
The Coleman Court stated the effect of a procedural default, as follows:
20
In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in
state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural
rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner
can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of
the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to
consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
1
Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986). The procedural
2
default doctrine ensures that the state’s interest in correcting its own mistakes is respected in all
3
federal habeas cases. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
4
To demonstrate cause for a procedural default, the petitioner must be able to “show that some
5
objective factor external to the defense impeded” his efforts to comply with the state procedural rule.
6
Murray, 477 U.S. at 488 (emphasis added). For cause to exist, the external impediment must have
7
prevented the petitioner from raising the claim. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 497 (1991).
8
Ineffective assistance of counsel may satisfy the cause requirement to overcome a procedural default.
9
Murray, 477 U.S. at 488. However, for ineffective assistance of counsel to satisfy the cause
10
requirement, the independent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, itself, must first be presented
11
to the state courts. Murray, 477 U.S. at 488-89. In addition, the independent ineffective assistance
12
of counsel claim cannot serve as cause if that claim is procedurally defaulted. Edwards v. Carpenter,
13
529 U.S. 446, 453 (2000).
14
With respect to the prejudice prong of cause and prejudice, the petitioner bears:
15
the burden of showing not merely that the errors [complained of]
constituted a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual
and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire [proceeding] with
errors of constitutional dimension.
16
17
White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989), citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170
18
(1982). If the petitioner fails to show cause, the court need not consider whether the petitioner
19
suffered actual prejudice. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 134 n.43 (1982); Roberts v. Arave, 847 F.2d
20
528, 530 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988).
21
22
23
2. Petitioner’s Claims were Procedural Defaulted in State Court on Independent
and Adequate State Grounds
Petitioner’s federal petition contains the same two claims raised in his state habeas petition.
24
(ECF No. 5 at pp. 3-6; Exhibit 68, at pp. 8-10). First, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel
25
based on counsel advising him to plead guilty “without first advising [Barker] of his statutory right to
26
7
1
the insanity defense, without first obtaining a psychiatrist to evaluate [Barker’s] mental state at the
2
time of the alleged crime, and without first obtaining a psychiatrist to assist him in the evaluation,
3
preparation, and presentation of the insanity defense/and or to assist at sentencing.” (ECF No. 5, at
4
pp. 3-4; Exhibit 68, at pp. 8-9). In the second ground, petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of
5
counsel because “trial counsel knowingly allowed Barker to plead guilty while he was mentally
6
incompetent.” (ECF No. 5, at p. 6; Exhibit 68, at p. 10). By written order filed September 24, 2010,
7
the state district court denied the petition as untimely under NRS 34.726 and barred by latches under
8
NRS 34.800. (Exhibit 73). On appeal from the denial of petitioner’s state habeas petition, the
9
Nevada Supreme Court found these claims procedurally defaulted. (Exhibit 82). In affirming the
10
state district court’s denial of the petition, the Nevada Supreme Court cited NRS 34.726(1) and ruled
11
that the petition was untimely filed. (Exhibit 82, at p. 1). The Nevada Supreme Court further
12
affirmed the state district court’s finding that the petition failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice
13
that arises under the latches bar of NRS 34.800. (Exhibit 82, at pp. 2-3).
14
The state courts’ application of the procedural bars at issue in this case – NRS 34.726(1) and NRS
15
34.800 – were decided on independent and adequate state grounds. See Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d
16
1261, 1268-70 (9th Cir. 1996). As such, this federal court is barred from considering the claims in
17
the federal petition that were procedurally defaulted in state court. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501
18
U.S. at 730-31.
19
3. Cause and Prejudice
20
As noted earlier in this order, petitioner failed to oppose the motion to dismiss. Petitioner has
21
not addressed the issue of procedural default and has not asserted any reason for his failure to file his
22
petition in a timely manner. Neither the petition itself, nor petitioner’s other filings address the
23
procedural default of the claims in his petition or assert any argument of cause and prejudice to
24
excuse the procedural default.
25
26
8
1
This court notes that, in its order affirming the state district court’s denial of the state habeas
2
petition as untimely and barred by latches, the Nevada Supreme Court considered petitioner’s
3
argument that he had cause to excuse the delay because he was mentally incompetent due to a bipolar
4
disorder. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that “petitioner attached copies of 1995 and 2000
5
documents showing his mental health problems and asserted that it was only in 2010 that he regained
6
competency due to adequate mental health care at his new facility.” (Exhibit 82, at p. 2). The
7
Nevada Supreme Court held: “The documents from 1995 and 2000 are not newly discovered as they
8
pre-date his judgment of conviction in this case, and thus, any claim relating to his competence in the
9
trial proceedings was reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition.” (Id.). The Nevada
10
Supreme Court held that: “Further, the documents do not demonstrate that he was mentally
11
incompetent during the time period in question.” (Id.).
12
In an abundance of caution, this court has independently reviewed the documents attached to
13
petitioner’s state habeas petition which are referenced in the Nevada Supreme Court’s order.
14
(Exhibit 68, Exhibits 1-3). Exhibit 1 to the state petition is a discharge summary by Dr. Patricia E.
15
Hogan, dated October 15, 1995, from Heartland Health Systems in St. Joseph, Missouri. (Exhibit
16
68, at Exhibit 1). The discharge summary indicates that petitioner suffered from paranoid
17
schizophrenia, and that he was being medicated for his mental condition. The discharge summary
18
noted that petitioner would benefit from further mental health care, but determined that there was no
19
evidence that a 96-hour hold was necessary. To the extent that petitioner may assert this document
20
to support an argument that his mental illness is sufficient “cause” to excuse the procedural default,
21
this court rejects the argument because the 1995 discharge summary does not demonstrate that
22
petitioner was mentally ill during the relevant time period in which he could have filed a timely
23
petition.
24
25
Exhibit 2 to the state petition is a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Dodge A. Slagle, dated June
10, 2000. The evaluation notes that petitioner suffered from bipolar disorder, but indicates that
26
9
1
petitioner was competent to stand trial and assist his attorney in the defense of his case. To the
2
extent that petitioner may assert this document to support an argument that his mental illness is
3
sufficient “cause” to excuse the procedural default, this court rejects the argument because the June
4
2000 evaluation does not demonstrate that petitioner was mentally ill during the relevant time period
5
in which he could have filed a timely petition.
6
Exhibit 3 to the state petition is petitioner’s own affidavit, dated January 27, 2010, in which
7
he claims that he “was mentally incompetent and unable to litigate my habeas corpus proceedings
8
from January 16, 2003 until January 23, 2010.” (Exhibit 68, at Exhibit 3, p. 1). Petitioner’s affidavit
9
goes on to state that: “I am now competent . . . ” (Id., at Exhibit 3, p. 2). To the extent that petitioner
10
may assert this document to support an argument that his mental illness is sufficient “cause” to
11
excuse the procedural default, this court rejects petitioner’s self-serving affidavit. Petitioner
12
presented no psychiatric evaluations or other documents to substantiate his self-serving claim that he
13
was mentally incompetent and unable to litigate his petition from January 16, 2003 through January
14
23, 2010. Petitioner’s affidavit does not demonstrate that he was mentally ill during the relevant
15
time period in which he could have filed a timely petition.
16
In summary, this court finds that all grounds of the petition were procedurally defaulted in
17
state court on independent and adequate state law grounds. Petitioner has failed to show cause and
18
prejudice to excuse the procedural bar. Moreover, nothing in the federal petition, the state petition,
19
or the state court record demonstrates cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural bar. Nor does
20
anything in the petition or the state court record demonstrate that the failure of this court to consider
21
petitioner’s claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. As such, the federal petition is
22
procedurally barred from review by this court, and will be dismissed. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; see
23
also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 485.
24
/////////
25
/////////
26
10
1
III. Certificate of Appealability
2
In order to proceed with an appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28
3
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951
4
(9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a
5
petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to warrant a
6
certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84
7
(2000). “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's
8
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In
9
order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are
10
debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the
11
questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. This court has considered
12
the issues raised by petitioner, with respect to whether they satisfy the standard for issuance of a
13
certificate of appealability, and determines that none meet that standard. The court will therefore
14
deny petitioner a certificate of appealability.
15
IV. Conclusion
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is
17
GRANTED and the federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH
18
PREJUDICE.
19
20
21
22
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT
ACCORDINGLY.
January 31, 2013.
Dated this ______ day of January, 2013.
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
11
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?