Adrian Demon Johnwell v. Christian Pfeiffer
5:19-cv-01591
C.D. Cal.Oct 7, 2019Background
- Petitioner Adrian Johnwell was convicted in San Bernardino County (trial May 2004); the state appellate court affirmed in Jan 2008 and the California Supreme Court denied review on March 26, 2008.
- Judgment became final 90 days later (June 24, 2008); AEDPA one-year window for federal habeas expired June 24, 2009.
- Petitioner filed the federal habeas petition (deemed filed in this court) on July 13, 2019—over ten years after the AEDPA deadline.
- Petitioner filed a California Court of Appeal habeas petition on June 26, 2009; no earlier state collateral filings are shown to toll AEDPA.
- Petitioner alleges trial counsel overlooked DNA evidence and asserts actual innocence, but provides no new, reliable exculpatory evidence.
- The magistrate judge issued an order to show cause giving Johnwell 28 days to explain why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, and explained the proof required for equitable tolling or an actual-innocence exception.
Issues
| Issue | Johnwell's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1)(A) | Petition filed 2019; seeks review of conviction | Petition is facially untimely—judgment final June 24, 2008; one-year limit expired June 24, 2009 | Court: Petition is facially time-barred; ordered Johnwell to show cause why it should not be dismissed with prejudice |
| Trigger date under § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) (newly discovered facts) | Claims he learned of DNA issues later and thus may qualify for later trigger | No assertion of state-created impediment or new retroactive right; facts known by Feb 2, 2016 at the latest | Court: No basis shown for a later trigger; even Feb 2, 2016 would not make the 2019 filing timely |
| Statutory tolling (§ 2244(d)(2)) | Relies on state habeas activity to toll AEDPA | Only a June 26, 2009 appellate habeas is shown; AEDPA period likely already expired before that filing | Court: No adequate state-court filings shown to toll the limitations period to make petition timely |
| Equitable tolling / actual innocence | Argues counsel ignored DNA evidence; claims actual innocence | No evidence of diligence or extraordinary circumstances; no new reliable exculpatory evidence offered | Court: Burden not met for equitable tolling or Schlup actual-innocence exception; ordered Johnwell to present evidence and a sworn declaration if he seeks tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (judgment final 90 days after state denial of certiorari time frame)
- Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir.) (AEDPA one-year limits analysis)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S.) (statutory tolling covers a full round of state collateral review)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (U.S.) (reasonableness standards for gap tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S.) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (equitable-tolling causation requirement)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.) (equitable-tolling causation discussion)
- Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.) (equitable tolling threshold is high)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir.) (equitable tolling justified in few cases)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (U.S.) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome AEDPA limitations)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.) (standard for assessing Schlup actual-innocence claims)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S.) (new reliable evidence must make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict)
- Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.) (court may raise AEDPA timeliness sua sponte with notice)