Chapman v. Myles et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING the petition with prejudice as time-barred. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
***
10
ROCHALONN M. CHAPMAN,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
Case No.2:12-cv-01804-MMD-VCF
ORDER
v.
CAROLYN MYLES, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
This habeas matter comes before the Court on a sua sponte inquiry into whether
18
the petition is time-barred because it was not filed within the one-year limitation period
19
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This order follows upon an earlier show cause order (dkt.
20
no. 5) and petitioner’s response (dkt. no. 6) thereto.
21
I.
22
23
24
25
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Rochalonn Chapman challenges her Nevada state conviction,
pursuant to a jury verdict, of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon.
Petitioner’s responses and the online docket records of the state courts reflect
the following state and federal procedural history.
26
Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in a December 6, 2007,
27
decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada. The time period for filing a petition for a writ
28
of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired on March 5, 2008.
1
Nearly two years later, on or about January 6, 2010, petitioner filed a motion to
2
modify sentence in the state district court. The court denied the motion on or about
3
February 10, 2010. Petitioner did not appeal the denial of the motion. The time for
4
doing so expired on or about March 12, 2010.
Nearly another two years later, on or about November 28, 2011, petitioner filed a
5
6
motion to correct illegal sentence in the state district court.
The court denied the
7
motion, and the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed on appeal. The remittitur issued on
8
August 20, 2012.
On or about September 28, 2012, petitioner mailed the federal petition to the
9
10
Clerk of this Court for filing.
11
II.
DISCUSSION
12
Pursuant to Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court sua sponte
13
has raised the question of whether the petition is time-barred for failure to file the
14
petition within the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).1
15
16
Calculation And Application Of The Federal One-Year Limitation
Period
17
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the federal one-year limitation period, unless
18
otherwise tolled or subject to delayed accrual, begins running after "the date on which
19
the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the
20
time for seeking such direct review." In the present case, the limitation period began
21
running upon expiration of the ninety day time period for filing a petition for certiorari
22
after the state supreme court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, i.e., after March
23
5, 2008.
24
1
25
26
27
28
A.
Petitioner states in her response that “up to this point . . . no one has stated or
argued that the case has been time barred or procedurally barred.” Dkt. no. 6, at 8.
Regardless of whether or not the two state proceedings initiated by petitioner were
subject to a limitations period or a procedural bar, a federal habeas petition undeniably
is subject to a one-year limitation period. This Court has questioned the timeliness of
the petition sua sponte, which it is authorized to do under the Ninth Circuit authority
cited in the text. Petitioner thus must demonstrate that the federal habeas petition is not
subject to dismissal for untimeliness.
2
1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the federal limitation period is statutorily tolled
2
during the pendency of a properly filed application for state post-conviction relief or for
3
other state collateral review.
4
collateral review of the conviction at any time during the one year period from March 5,
5
2008, to March 5, 2009.
However, there were no state proceedings seeking
6
Accordingly, absent other tolling or delayed accrual, the federal limitation period
7
expired on March 5, 2009. The federal petition in this matter was not mailed for filing
8
until on or about September 28, 2012, more than three years and six months after the
9
federal limitation period had expired, absent other tolling or delayed accrual.
10
The
petition therefore is untimely on its face.
11
In the show-cause response, petitioner provides extensive argument directed to
12
whether the claims in the petition are exhausted and to the procedural default doctrine.
13
However, the show-cause order was directed to neither exhaustion nor procedural
14
default.
15
petition should not be dismissed because it was untimely under the one-year limitation
16
period under § 2244(d)(1). The show-cause order further outlined for petitioner the
17
governing law that is applicable to that issue. Petitioner’s lengthy argument regarding
18
exhaustion and procedural default wholly begs the question and is irrelevant. 2
The show-cause order instead directed petitioner to show cause why the
19
Petitioner’s argument regarding application of the standard of review on the
20
merits under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. §
21
2254(d), is similarly irrelevant. The question at issue is not adjudication of the claims
22
on the merits under § 2254(d) but is application of the one-year limitation period under §
23
2244(d)(1) that also was adopted pursuant to AEDPA. Again, the show-cause order
24
outlined for petitioner the law that is applicable to the question at issue.
25
26
27
28
2
The Court makes no implicit holding as to whether the claims presented were
exhausted and not procedurally defaulted. The only issue before the Court on the
current show-cause inquiry is whether the federal petition is untimely in the first
instance. This threshold issue cuts across all other potential issues.
3
Petitioner’s argument concerning state statutory provisions applicable to state
1
2
post-conviction relief also is irrelevant.
Petitioner is not in state court anymore.
3
Statutes such as N.R.S. 34.500 have no application to this proceeding and clearly have
4
no application to the timeliness issue under § 2244(d)(1).
In her response, petitioner underscores, without additional apposite argument,
5
6
the language in
§ 2244(d)(2) providing that the federal limitation period shall be
7
statutorily tolled during the time that a properly filed application for state post-conviction
8
or other collateral review is pending in the state courts. However, the Court expressly
9
took this statutory tolling into account in the show-cause order. Statutory tolling under §
10
2244(d)(2) does not render the petition timely for two reasons. First, there were no
11
state proceedings pending before the federal limitation period expired on March 5,
12
2009, absent other tolling or delayed accrual over and above § 2244(d)(2) tolling.
13
Second, there were large blocks of time far exceeding one year in the aggregate that
14
were not subject to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). There was a nearly two-year
15
gap between the March 5, 2008, date after which the federal limitation period began
16
running and petitioner’s January 6, 2010, motion to modify sentence in the state district
17
court.
18
expiration of the time for appealing the denial of that motion and petitioner’s November
19
28, 2011, motion to correct illegal sentence in the state district court. Statutory tolling
20
under § 2244(d)(2) thus does not render the federal petition timely.
And there was another nearly two-year gap between the March 12, 2010,
21
Petitioner further urges that: (a) a motion to correct illegal sentence may be
22
brought at any time; (b) she is filing a motion to correct illegal sentence “via” a petition
23
for a writ of habeas corpus; (c) she should not be treated any differently than would a
24
federal prisoner filing a motion to correct illegal sentence; and (d) she should not be
25
denied an adequate review of her claims simply because she is late in filing a motion to
26
correct an illegal sentence, which is not subject to time limitations. Petitioner’s premises
27
and logic are both flawed.
28
sentence is in fact subject to a one-year limitation period just like a state prisoner
A federal prisoner seeking to file a motion to correct
4
1
seeking federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).3 A state prisoner challenging a
2
state judgment of conviction must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
3
court, not a motion to correct sentence; and the one-year limitation period applicable to
4
a federal habeas petition may not be avoided by calling a habeas petition something
5
else. Petitioner’s argument is frivolous.
6
Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that the petition is timely on its face.
7
B.
8
Equitable tolling is appropriate only if the petitioner can show (1) that she has
9
been pursuing her rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood
10
in her way and prevented timely filing. Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 1085 (2010).
11
Equitable tolling is "unavailable in most cases," Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107
12
(9th Cir.1999), and "the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling is very high, lest
13
the exceptions swallow the rule," Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th
14
Cir.2002)(quoting United States v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir.2000)). The
15
petitioner ultimately has the burden of proof on this “extraordinary exclusion.” 292 F.3d
16
at 1065.
17
extraordinary circumstance and the lateness of her filing. E.g., Spitsyn v. Moore, 345
18
F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).Accord Bryant v. Arizona Attorney General, 499 F.3d 1056,
19
1061 (9th Cir. 2007).
Equitable Tolling
She accordingly must demonstrate a causal relationship between the
20
Petitioner asserts in the show cause response: (a) that “statistics show” that
21
85% of prisoners are totally illiterate in exercising their rights to access the courts and
22
that she falls in that 85%; (b) that during the time that she and other female inmates
23
were housed on an overflow basis in a men’s institution at “Jean Correctional Center,”
24
she was not afforded “proper” legal forms or research and was not privy to a post-
25
26
27
28
3
A Nevada state court motion to correct sentence is not subject to a limitations
period. However, apart from statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2), the fact that a Nevada
motion to correct sentence is not subject to a limitations period has nothing to do with
the application of the one-year federal limitation period under § 2244(d)(1). A federal
habeas petition indisputably is subject to a one-year limitation period.
5
1
sentencing change in Nevada law upon which she relies; and (c) after being transferred
2
back to her current facility she learned of the change in the law and has pursued relief
3
as forms and research became available but “often times” inmates of the facility are not
4
provided correct forms and research.4
5
At the outset, petitioner neither has presented competent evidence nor has she
6
provided evidence of specific facts as required by the show-cause order. The show-
7
cause order expressly directed:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all assertions of fact made by petitioner
in response to this show cause order must be detailed, must be specific as
to time and place, and must be supported by competent evidence. The
Court will not consider any assertions of fact that are not specific as to
time and place, that are not made pursuant to a declaration under penalty
of perjury based upon personal knowledge, and/or that are not supported
by competent evidence filed by petitioner in the federal record. Petitioner
thus must attach copies of all materials upon which she bases her
argument that the petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
Unsupported assertions of fact will be disregarded.
Dkt. no. 5, at 5.
15
None of the factual assertions made by petitioner are made pursuant to a
16
declaration under penalty of perjury. Indeed, the body of the show-cause response is
17
not even signed by petitioner. Under the show-cause order, petitioner may not make
18
factual statements in the response that have no supporting evidence. She instead must
19
make a declaration under penalty of perjury and present competent evidence in support
20
of a claim of equitable tolling in response to the show-cause order. The only declaration
21
under penalty of perjury attached with the response affirms that the information in the
22
certificate of service is true and correct. Petitioner has made no declaration under
23
penalty of perjury that the facts asserted in the show-cause response are true and
24
correct.
25
disregarded.”
As the show-cause order states:
“Unsupported assertions of fact will be
26
27
28
4
See Dkt. no. 6, at 10-11. Petitioner has not argued equitable tolling per se, but
the Court has placed her factual arguments in the appropriate place in the time-bar
analysis.
6
1
Further, the unsupported generalized factual assertions made are not specific as
2
to time and place as required by the show-cause order. Moreover, even if arguendo
3
accepted as true on their face, the factual assertions made by petitioner do not establish
4
a basis for equitable tolling.
5
With regard to alleged illiteracy, petitioner’s multiple lengthy filings in this matter,
6
as well as her multiple filings in the state courts, clearly belie any claim that she is totally
7
illiterate.
8
provide a basis for equitable tolling. E.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th
9
Cir. 2006).
An inmate’s lay status and unfamiliarity with the law otherwise does not
10
With regard to the time at the Jean facility, the material that petitioner attaches
11
with the show-cause response reflects that petitioner was at Jean through March 21,
12
2008. The federal limitation period did not begin running until after March 5, 2008.
13
Petitioner must show not only that she purportedly was subjected to an extraordinary
14
circumstance that constituted an impediment but must demonstrate a causal
15
relationship between the impediment and her untimely filing. E.g., Spitsyn, supra. Even
16
if the Court assumed, arguendo, the existence of an extraordinary circumstance for 16
17
days at the beginning of the limitation period, such a circumstance would not cause a
18
failure to timely file a federal petition one year later on March 5, 2009. Moreover, even if
19
the Court instead followed a “counting-the-days” approach to equitable tolling, rather
20
than requiring a causal nexus, more than a year elapsed between March 21, 2008, and
21
petitioner’s first state filing on January 6, 2010. And nearly another two years elapsed
22
between the conclusion of that proceeding and her second state filing. Thus, even if the
23
Court were to hold that the circumstances at the Jean facility constituted an
24
extraordinary circumstance, the sixteen (16) days involved would not render the federal
25
petition timely.5
26
5
27
28
The Court notes in passing that, based on the response to her kite attached
with her show-cause response, petitioner apparently actually is referring to the nowclosed Southern Nevada Correctional Center. The only other facility at Jean, Nevada,
is the Jean Conservation Camp, which at least currently is an all-female facility.
7
1
Finally, petitioner’s broad amorphous assertions that, after returning to her
2
current facility, she has pursued relief as forms and research became available but
3
“often times” inmates at the facility are not provided correct forms and research fails to
4
demonstrate either an extraordinary circumstance standing in her way or diligence on
5
her part. A total of nearly four years passed in the aggregate during which petitioner
6
was not pursuing relief in any court. If petitioner had sought relief in this Court, even on
7
an improper form, the Court would have provided her an opportunity to seek relief on
8
the proper form either in the then-current action or in a new action depending on where
9
the limitation period stood at the time. Moreover, under established law, petitioner does
10
not have a right to the active legal assistance of an inmate law clerk who independently
11
analyzes the issues in her case when responding to her requests for research materials.
12
See,e.g., Felix v. McDaniel, 2012 WL 666742, slip op. at *7-8 (D.Nev., Feb. 29, 2012).
13
Petitioner’s prolific filings in this matter demonstrate that she has access to legal
14
research materials.
15
provided “correct” research seeks to base a claim of equitable tolling upon her own
16
unfamiliarity with the law and a lack of active legal assistance in navigating those prison
17
legal resources. Neither establishes a basis for equitable tolling under established law.
18
19
Her generalized assertion that inmates “often times” are not
Petitioner therefore has not established a basis for equitable tolling in response
to the show-cause order.
20
C.
21
In order to avoid application of the one-year limitation period based upon a claim
22
of actual innocence, petitioner must come forward with new reliable evidence that was
23
not presented at trial tending to establish her innocence, i.e., tending to establish that no
24
juror acting reasonably would have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light
25
of such evidence. See House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006); Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d
26
929 (9th Cir. 2011)(en banc).6
27
28
Actual Innocence
6
The United States Supreme Court recently granted a petition for a writ of
certiorari in McQuiggen v. Perkins, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2012 WL 3061886 (Oct. 29, 2012),
(fn. cont…)
8
1
Petitioner asserts in the show cause response that: (a) there was no weapon
2
found or presented at trial to justify the weapon enhancement conviction; (b) she, a
3
twenty-one year-old mother of two, was convicted without valid reliable evidence
4
despite self-defense allegedly being an inalienable constitutional right; (c) a change to
5
the Nevada weapon enhancement statute adopted after both her offense and her
6
sentencing should have been applied retroactively to her case; and (d) the entire
7
process in her case has constituted a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” that would
8
continue if her claims are not reviewed.7
9
On her first contention above, petitioner urges that just as there can be no
10
murder conviction without a body, there can be no conviction on a weapon
11
enhancement without a weapon being introduced in evidence.
12
assumptions do not suffice for a valid conviction and that she was convicted on the
13
weapon enhancement as to a weapon that “they’re not sure existed.”
She maintains that
14
Petitioner’s conclusory and factually unsupported argument regarding the lack of
15
a weapon in evidence does not present new reliable evidence not presented at trial
16
tending to establish that no juror would have found her not guilty of the weapon
17
enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s premises and logic again are
18
fundamentally flawed. A defendant can be convicted of murder based upon
19
circumstantial evidence even if the victim’s body cannot be found. 8
20
defendant can be convicted of a weapon enhancement based upon circumstantial
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Similarly, a
(… fn. cont.)
raising the question of whether the one-year time bar may be avoided on a showing of
actual innocence. Resolution of the present show-cause inquiry does not turn upon the
outcome in McQuiggen. Ninth Circuit precedent currently recognizes actual innocence
as a basis for avoiding the time-bar, and, as discussed in the text, petitioner has not
made the requisite showing under that precedent and the actual innocence standard
otherwise applicable to overcome a procedural bar.
7
Petitioner once again has not argued actual innocence per se under the
governing law outlined in the show-cause order, but the Court has placed her
arguments in the appropriate place in the analysis.
8
See,e.g., Vignolo v. Ignacio, No. 2:00-cv-00430-ECR-RAM, #59, at 14-17
(D.Nev., Sept. 4, 2003) (discussing the Nevada corpus delicti rule and sufficiency of the
evidence to convict in a murder case where the victim’s body never was recovered).
9
1
evidence even if the weapon is not recovered and introduced into evidence.
For
2
example, if a murder victim was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest, it is an entirely
3
permissible, if not compelled, inference that he was killed by a dangerous weapon. An
4
offender may not avoid exposure on a weapon enhancement merely by the expedient of
5
ditching the murder weapon. Petitioner’s conclusory assertion that the murder weapon
6
was not found or introduced at trial thus falls far short of carrying her burden in seeking
7
to avoid the time bar based on a claim of actual innocence. 9
8
On her second contention, petitioner’s bare assertion that she was convicted
9
without valid evidence despite claiming self-defense similarly fails to carry her burden of
10
demonstrating actual innocence.
11
On her third contention, petitioner contends that an amendment to the weapon
12
enhancement statute that changed the length of the sentence to be imposed on the
13
enhancement should be applied retroactively to her case. This legal argument fails to
14
establish actual innocence under the applicable standard. In order to establish actual
15
innocence, a petitioner must establish actual factual innocence, not alleged legal
16
insufficiency. See,e.g., Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339 (1992). A legal argument
17
that a post-offense, post-sentencing amendment to the weapon enhancement statute
18
changing the sentence that could be imposed should have been applied retroactively to
19
petitioner’s case does not establish actual innocence of the weapon enhancement. 10
20
21
Finally, on her fourth contention, petitioner asserts that the failure to consider her
claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
However, judicial
22
9
23
24
25
26
27
28
As discussed supra at 6, the show-cause order expressly directed that
petitioner must present competent evidence of specific actual fact in her response to
the order. Conclusory argument is insufficient.
10
The Court notes that the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the statute does
not apply retroactively to offenders who committed their crimes prior to the effective
date of the amendment. SeeState v.Second Judicial District Court (Pullin), 124 Nev.
564, 188 P.3d 1079 (2008). The Supreme Court of Nevada of course is the final arbiter
of Nevada state law. In any event, a legal argument under either state or federal law
that the provisions of the statute changing the length of the sentence to be imposed
should be applied retroactively does not tend to establish actual factual innocence of
the weapon enhancement itself.
10
1
consideration of procedurally barred claims on the premise that to do so is necessary to
2
avoid a fundamental miscarriage of justice is limited to demonstrated claims of actual
3
innocence. See,e.g., Johnson v. Knowles, 541 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2008). A petitioner
4
who asserts only constitutional claims without establishing actual innocence under the
5
narrow gateway required to establish such a claim fails to satisfy the standard for the
6
miscarriage of justice exception. 541 F.3d at 937. As discussed above, petitioner has
7
not even begun to shoulder her burden of demonstrating actual innocence under the
8
demanding standard for such claims.
Petitioner accordingly has failed to demonstrate in response to the show-cause
9
10
order that the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.
11
III.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition shall be DISMISSED with
12
13
CONCLUSION
prejudice as time-barred.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as
15
jurists of reason would not find the district court’s dismissal of the petition as time-
16
barred, following issuance of a show-cause order and consideration of petitioner’s
17
response thereto, to be debatable or wrong. Petitioner has presented neither competent
18
evidence nor specific evidence as directed by the show-cause order. Her conclusory
19
factual and legal arguments in any event do not present a viable basis for overcoming
20
one-year statute of limitation, for the reasons discussed herein.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
22
Section 2254 Cases, the Clerk of Court shall provide respondents with notice of the
23
action taken herein by effecting informal electronic service of the order and judgment
24
upon Catherine Cortez Masto as per the Clerk’s current practice, together with
25
regenerating notices of electronic filing to her office of the prior filings herein.
26
response is required from respondents, other than to respond to any orders of a
27
reviewing court.
28
///
11
No
1
2
The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents
and against petitioner, dismissing this action with prejudice.
3
4
DATED THIS 25th day of January 2013.
5
6
7
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
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?