Carrillo v. State of Nevada

Filing 13

ORDER re 7 Order on Petition. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is untimely. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/13/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4

GILBERTO CARRILLO,

5

Petitioner

6

vs.

7

Case No. 2:13-cv-01244-JAD-NJK

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

Order Dismissing Untimely Petition

Respondents

8
9
10

The court directed petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as

11

untimely. Order (ECF 7). Petitioner has submitted a response (ECF 12). The court is not

12

persuaded, and the court dismisses this action.

13

A.

14

No equitable tolling
Petitioner argues that the court should equitably toll the period of limitation for two

15

reasons: (1) he instructed trial counsel to appeal, but counsel never filed a notice of appeal, and

16

(2) counsel did not send him his case file despite repeated requests and then motions in the state

17

district court. Minutes of the state district court indicate that counsel definitely sent, and

18

petitioner received, the case file soon after June 15, 2009. State v. Carillo, Case No.

19

05C215652-1.1

20

The court will consider only the argument related to counsel sending petitioner his case

21

file because petitioner would have learned that counsel had not filed a direct appeal no later than

22

the date petitioner received his case file. Petitioner then filed his post-conviction habeas corpus

23

petition in state district court approximately two months later, on August 14, 2009. Minutes of

24

the state district court indicate that on June 16, 2010, that court scheduled an evidentiary hearing

25

to determine whether petitioner could show good cause to overcome the one-year time bar of

26
27
28

1

https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=7524311
(report generated October 13, 2015). Petitioner’s name is spelled differently in the state-court
records.
1

1

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1). The state district court held the hearing, determined that petitioner

2

did not show good cause, and dismissed the petition as untimely. The state district court entered

3

its order on December 1, 2011. Petitioner appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed for

4

the same reason.

5

Petitioner has not shown the diligence required for equitable tolling. He learned no later

6

than June 16, 2010, that he had a problem with the timeliness of his state habeas corpus petition.

7

If, as actually happened, the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately decided that the petition was

8

untimely, all the time spent on that state habeas corpus petition would not be tolled under

9

§ 2244(d)(2). Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). The Supreme Court of the

10

United States anticipated that problem and stated that a person in petitioner’s situation needs to

11

file a protective petition in federal court and to seek a stay of that petition. Id. at 416 (citing

12

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)). Nothing stopped petitioner from filing that protective

13

federal petition in this court. He still would have had a problem with the timeliness of the federal

14

petition, but at least he would have shown diligence in acting promptly once he realized that the

15

problem existed. Instead, petitioner waited more than three years before commencing this action

16

without a petition, and then almost another year passed before petitioner mailed the petition to

17

the court on June 2, 2014. Petitioner has not acted diligently, and thus equitable tolling is not

18

warranted.

19

B.

No certificate of appealability

20

To appeal the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must obtain a

21

certificate of appealability after making a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

22

right”:

23
24
25
26
27

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing
required to satisfy §2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. The issue becomes somewhat more complicated where, as here, the
district court dismisses the petition based on procedural grounds. We hold as follows:
When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner
shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.

28
2

1

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077-79

2

(9th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). Reasonable jurists would not find debatable this court’s

3

determination that equitable tolling is not warranted, and the court will not issue a certificate of

4

appealability.

5

C.

6

Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice because

7

it is untimely. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

8

case.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED: 10/13/15

11
_________________________________
_____________________
_
_
_ __
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
ENNIFER DORSEY
NI
NI ER
R Y
United States District Judge
District Judge
ict

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3