Dajuan Flemming v. Giselle Matteson
26f4th1136
| 9th Cir. | 2022Background
- In March 2009 Flemming shot and killed a driver after pursuing a red Mustang; he confessed during custodial interrogation and was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted premeditated murder.
- Conviction became final on October 21, 2013; AEDPA one-year federal habeas clock ran absent tolling.
- Flemming filed state habeas petitions starting August 2014; the California superior court sua sponte held the petition untimely and denied on the merits.
- Flemming petitioned the California Court of Appeal, which requested an "opposition to the petition" (government briefed timeliness and merits) and then denied the petition in a one-line order; the California Supreme Court later denied in a one-line order.
- The district court treated the federal petition as timely but denied relief on the merits; Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on timeliness-related claims and reviewed whether AEDPA’s statute of limitations was tolled by the state filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flemming’s federal habeas was timely under AEDPA given state filings | State petitions (filed Aug 2014, pending until Dec 2017) tolled AEDPA, so federal filing is timely | State habeas was untimely under California law, so no tolling applies | Petition untimely; state filing did not properly toll AEDPA and federal petition fails timeliness |
| Whether a superior court’s untimeliness ruling is adopted when a higher court issues a one-line denial (Ylst "look-through") | Trigueros: a higher court’s summary denial after requesting briefing can imply consideration on the merits (so not adopting untimeliness) | Ylst presumption applies: unexplained higher-court orders are presumed to adopt the lower court’s reasoning unless rebutted | Applied Ylst look-through: Court of Appeal’s summary denial is treated as tacitly adopting the superior court’s untimeliness ruling |
| Whether Trigueros v. Adams controls and should be extended here | Flemming: Trigueros controls; Court of Appeal’s request for briefing is analogous to Trigueros and rebuts look-through | Trigueros is limited to California Supreme Court practice and its facts; not extendable to Court of Appeal summary denials | Trigueros not extended to this context; factual and procedural differences justify following Ylst presumption |
| Effect of post-Trigueros authorities (Curiel, Wilson, Robinson) | Flemming: Trigueros remains controlling despite later cases | State: Curiel, Wilson, and Robinson support applying look-through and treating Court of Appeal silence as affirming untimeliness | Court relied on Curiel, Wilson, and Robinson to support applying look-through and concluding untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (explains AEDPA’s highly deferential standard for federal habeas review of state-court adjudications)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (establishes the "look-through" presumption for unexplained state-court orders)
- Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2011) (held California Supreme Court’s summary denial after requesting merits briefing rebutted look-through presumption)
- Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (declined to extend Trigueros to a Court of Appeal summary denial and treated silence as adopting lower court's untimeliness ruling)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) (reaffirmed Ylst look-through presumption and limited attempts to rebut it)
- Robinson v. Lewis, 469 P.3d 414 (Cal. 2020) (California Supreme Court clarified that each higher-court habeas petition is a new petition exercising original jurisdiction)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (state habeas petitions must be "properly filed" to toll AEDPA)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (discusses AEDPA’s one-year statute-of-limitations purpose)
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997) (explains AEDPA’s deferential standard of review)