Destinni Mardesich v. Matthew Cate
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3362
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mardesich, 16-year-old killer, convicted of first-degree murder (1992) and committed to Youth Authority; Board returned her to sentencing proceedings in 1996-1997 under Cal. Welfare & Inst. Code § 1737.1; resentencing occurred in 1998 after Board’s return order; state appellate proceedings culminated in finality of the resentencing decisions in 2003-2004; district court denied habeas petition as to four claims ( filed Dec 13, 2005, amended Mar 27, 2006 ); three claims challenged Board‑ordered return to superior court for resentencing; four claim challenged the resentencing itself; the district court dismissed claims 1–3 as untimely, and denied relief on the fourth as timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA limits apply claim-by-claim or petition-wide. | Mardesich argues petition timely if any claim timely. | California argues all claims limited by petition as barred unless timely. | AEDPA applies claim-by-claim. |
| Whether claims 1–3 challenge Board return order or resentencing. | Claims challenge the Board’s action returning to court. | Claims challenge the Board’s return order, not the resentencing. | Claims 1–3 challenge the Board’s administrative action. |
| Whether the Board’s return-order claims were timely under §2244(d)(1)(D). | Factual predicate discovered with due diligence; tolling applied. | Timeline began when Board denied appeal (Aug 19, 1997) and tolled until 2003; untimely. | Untimely by nearly 18 months. |
| Whether Shelby/Redd framework controls timeliness for administrative-action habeas claims. | Administrative-denial predicates govern timeliness. | Timeliness governed by standard §2244(d)(1)(D); 1997 denial timed out. | Shelby/Redd framework applied; timeliness resolved against petitioner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Crosby, 341 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003) (interpreted application-based timeliness under §2244(d)(1) vs. claim-by-claim)
- Fielder v. Varner, 379 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2004) (adopted claim-by-claim approach to AEDPA timing)
- Souliotes v. Evans, 622 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2010) (endorsed claim-by-claim approach (later vacated on other grounds))
- Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (mechanics for applying §2244(d)(1) to administrative decisions)
- Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2004) (parole/administrative-action habeas claims governed by §2244(d)(1)(D))
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (suggested claim-by-claim considerations in §2244(d)(1))
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (finality interests in AEDPA’s 1-year limit)