Luna-Dominguez v. Williams

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing ECF No. 6 petition with prejudice as time-barred; denying certificate of appealability; and instructing Clerk to serve copy of petition and this order on respondent (served via NEF), enter judgment, and close case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Ricardo Luna-Dominguez,
2:15-cv-01203-JAD-CWH

5

Petitioner
Order Dismissing Petition and Closing
Case

6

v.

7

Brian Williams,

8

[ECF No. 6]

Respondent

9
10

On July 20, 2015, I ordered § 2254 petitioner Ricardo Luna-Dominguez to show cause why

11

his 2015 petition challenging his 2008 Nevada state-court conviction and sentence should not be

12

dismissed as time-barred.1 Having reviewed Luna-Dominguez’s response to my order, I find that

13

Luna-Dominguez has not shown that he is entitled to equitable tolling, I dismiss his petition as time-

14

barred, and I direct the Clerk to close this case.

15

Discussion

16

Luna-Dominguez does not dispute that the § 2244(d) deadline to file his petition expired on

17

November 24, 2009—more than five years before he filed this petition. Luna-Dominguez responds

18

that he told his trial attorney that he wanted to appeal his conviction and was under the impression

19

that the attorney had filed an appeal on his behalf. Luna-Dominguez continues that he did not hear

20

from that attorney until May 2014, when Luna-Dominguez moved to have him relieved as counsel.

21

It was only then, according to Luna-Dominguez, that he discovered no appeal had been filed on his

22

behalf.

23

AEDPA’s limitations period may be subject to equitable tolling if the petitioner shows that

24

extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing a timely federal habeas petition and that he

25

diligently pursued his rights.2 Equitable tolling may be warranted when an attorney abandons a

26
27

1

ECF No. 5.

28

2

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2002).
Page 1 of 3

1

petitioner while the petitioner is prosecuting a state-court challenge to his conviction.3 But an

2

attorney’s abandonment will not warrant equitable tolling unless the petitioner reasonably relies on

3

counsel to prosecute the challenge and diligently seeks information from counsel about the status of

4

his case.4

5

For example, in Gibbs v. Legrand the attorney abandoned the petitioner and failed to notify

6

him that his state-court petition had been denied.5 Counsel also repeatedly ignored the petitioner’s

7

attempts to contact him to inquire about the status of his petition.6 As a result, the petitioner did not

8

learn that his state petition had been denied until he inquired directly to the state court.7 But by that

9

time, the deadline for filing a federal habeas petition had expired.8 The Ninth Circuit reasoned that,

10

though the petitioner could have contacted the state court to determine the status of his petition

11

sooner, he had no reason to do so because he reasonably relied on his counsel’s promise to keep him

12

informed about the status of his case.9 The Ninth Circuit found the petitioner’s repeated (albeit

13

unsuccessful) attempts to contact his counsel to obtain information about his petition significant10

14

and concluded that the petitioner had shown that he was entitled to equitable tolling based on his

15

attorney’s abandonment.11

16
17
18
19
20

3

See Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879, 887 (9th Cir.2014) (attorney’s failure to inform petitioner of
state court denial of habeas petition constituted abandonment and warranted equitable tolling where
attorney guaranteed to keep petitioner informed of case status and where petitioner repeatedly
inquired about case status).
4

Gibbs, 767 F.3d at 887.

5

Id. at 886–88.

6

Id.

7

Id.

8

Id.

26

9

Id.

27

10

Id.

28

11

Id.

21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 3

1

Unlike the petitioner in Gibbs, Luna-Dominguez has not shown that he made any attempt to

2

contact his trial attorney or the state court to inquire about the status of his appeal at any time

3

between November 2008 and May 2014. Thus, even taking his allegations as true, Luna-Dominguez

4

has not shown that he reasonably relied on trial counsel to pursue his appeal and that he diligently

5

inquired about the status of his case. Therefore, equitable tolling is not warranted, and Luna-

6

Dominguez’s petition is dismissed as time-barred.

7

Conclusion

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Luna-Dominguez’s petition for writ of

9

habeas corpus [ECF No. 6] is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, and a certificate of

10

appealability is DENIED.

11

The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve a copy of the petition and this order on respondent

12

via the Nevada Attorney General, enter judgment for respondent and against Luna-Dominguez, and

13

CLOSE THIS CASE.

14
15
16

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2016.
_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3