Jefferson v. Williams et al

Filing 11

ORDER Granting Respondents' 6 Motion to Dismiss. The petition is Dismissed with prejudice as untimely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 03/25/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

ANDREW JEFFERSON,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 2:14-cv-01901-GMN-VCF

BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,

13

ORDER

Respondents.

14
15
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
16
by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the Court is respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF
17
No. 6).
18
I. Procedural History
19
This case arises from petitioner’s conviction in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
20
County, Nevada. On May 18, 2012, petitioner was charged by information with one count of
21

burglary. (Exhibit 2).1 On July 2, 2012, petitioner signed a guilty plea agreement to one count of

22
burglary and sentencing under the small habitual criminal statute, in exchange for the dismissal of
23
other criminal charges. (Exhibit 3). Sentencing was continued several times. (Exhibits 5, 6, 7).
24
The judgment of conviction was entered on November 1, 2012, indicating that petitioner was
25
adjudged guilty of burglary and was adjudicated a habitual offender under the small habitual
26
27
28

1

The exhibits referenced in this order are found in the Court’s record at ECF No. 7.

1

offender statute (NRS 207.010). (Exhibit 9). Petitioner was sentenced to a maximum of 216

2

months incarceration, with minimum parole eligibility after 72 months served, and 248 days credit

3

for time served. (Id.). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

4

On November 19, 2013, petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction habeas petition in state

5

district court. (Exhibit 11). On January 21, 2014, the state district court dismissed the petition as

6

time-barred, because the post-conviction habeas petition was not filed within one year of the entry

7

of the judgment of conviction. (Exhibit 15).2 Petitioner appealed. (Exhibit 16). On July 23, 2014,

8

the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the untimely post-conviction habeas petition,

9

finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse the untimely filing of the petition.

10
11

(Exhibit 20). Remittitur issued on August 21, 2014 (Exhibit 21).
Petitioner dispatched his pro se federal habeas petition to this Court on October 8, 2014.

12

(ECF No. 4, at p. 1, item 5). Respondents have filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition on

13

the basis that the petition is untimely. (ECF No. 6). No opposition or reply was filed.

14

II. Discussion

15

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) amended the statutes

16

controlling federal habeas corpus practice to include a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of

17

federal habeas corpus petitions. With respect to the statute of limitations, the habeas corpus statute

18

provides:

19

(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–

20
21

(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;

22
23

(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;

24
25
26
27
28

2

The state district court’s written order denying the petition was filed on March 11, 2014.
(Exhibit 18).
-2-

1

(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

2
3

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.

4
5
6
7
8
9

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
For purposes of the AEDPA limitations period, “a judgment becomes ‘final’ in one of two

10

ways – either by the conclusion of direct review by the highest court, including the United States

11

Supreme Court, to review the judgment, or by the expiration of the time to seek such review, again

12

from the highest court from which such direct review could be sought.” Wixom v. Washington, 264

13

F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2001). Once the judgment of conviction becomes final, the petitioner has

14

365 days to file a federal habeas petition, with tolling of the time for filing during the pendency of a

15

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

16

pertinent judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (2). A habeas petitioner’s state post-conviction

17

petition, which was rejected by the state court as untimely under the statute of limitations, is not

18

“properly filed,” within the meaning of the statutory tolling provision of the AEDPA limitations

19

period. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 412-16 (2005).

20

A criminal defendant in Nevada has thirty days from the entry of judgment to file his notice

21

of appeal. Nev. R. App. P. 4(b). If the defendant does not seek direct review from the highest state

22

court, the conviction becomes final when the time for seeking such review expires. 28 U.S.C. §

23

2244(d)(1)(A); Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2007); Wixom v. Washington,

24

264 F.3d at 898. Once the judgment of conviction is final, the defendant has one year to file a

25

federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

26

In the present case, petitioner’s judgment of conviction was filed on November 1, 2012.

27

(Exhibit 9). Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal of his judgment of conviction. Where a

28

petitioner does not appeal from his judgment of conviction, the one-year AEDPA limitations period
-3-

1

begins to run on the date on which the time to seek appeal expires. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(a);

2

NRAP 4. Petitioner’s conviction became final on December 1, 2012, which was the deadline for

3

filing a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. The one-year AEDPA statute of limitations

4

began to run on December 2, 2012, and expired on December 2, 2013. The first page of the federal

5

habeas petition indicates that the petition was dispatched (given to prison staff for mailing) to this

6

Court on October 8, 2014. (ECF No. 4, at p. 1, item 5).3 As such, the federal petition was filed over

7

ten months after the AEDPA statute of limitations had expired.

8
9

The Court notes that petitioner’s state post-conviction habeas petition, which was untimely
filed on November 19, 2013, did not statutorily toll the AEDPA statute of limitations. (Exhibit 11).

10

The state district court denied the petition as untimely. (Exhibits 15 & 18). In the order of

11

affirmance filed July 23, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court held that petitioner’s post-conviction

12

state habeas petition was untimely pursuant to NRS 34.726 and that petitioner failed to demonstrate

13

good cause for the delay in filing his petition. (Exhibit 20). Because it was untimely under state

14

law, the state post-conviction habeas petition was not a “properly filed application” that would toll

15

the AEDPA statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. at

16

412-16. Because the federal petition is untimely, it must be dismissed with prejudice.

17

III. Certificate of Appealability

18

District courts are required to rule on the certificate of appealability in the order disposing of

19

a proceeding adversely to the petitioner or movant, rather than waiting for a notice of appeal and

20

request for certificate of appealability to be filed. Rule 11(a). In order to proceed with his appeal,

21

petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th

22

Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, a petitioner must

23

make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to warrant a certificate of

24

appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). “The

25

petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the

26
27
28

3

This Court deems petitioner’s federal petition to be filed on October 8, 2014. See Houston
v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (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).
-4-

1

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In order to meet

2

this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are debatable

3

among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are

4

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. In this case, no reasonable jurist would

5

find this Court’s dismissal of the petition debatable or wrong. The Court therefore denies petitioner

6

a certificate of appealability.

7

IV. Conclusion

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
untimely.
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.

16
17

Dated this ______ day of May, 2015.
25
March, 2016.

18
19
20

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-