Freddy Curiel v. Amy Miller
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13487
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Freddy Curiel was convicted in California (special-circumstances first-degree murder and street terrorism) and sentenced to life without parole plus 25 years; conviction became final Sept. 9, 2008.
- Curiel filed three state habeas petitions: Superior Court (May 12, 2009 — denied as untimely and for failure to state a prima facie case), Court of Appeal (July 7, 2009 — denied without explanation), and California Supreme Court (Sept. 7, 2009 — denied Feb. 18, 2010 with citations to In re Swain and People v. Duvall).
- Curiel filed a federal habeas petition on Mar. 8, 2010. The government moved to dismiss as untimely under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations (which expired Sept. 9, 2009 without tolling).
- The district court credited the California Supreme Court’s Swain/Duvall citation as a denial for pleading defects (thus tolled only for the period before the CA Supreme Court) but refused to toll for the earlier Superior Court and Court of Appeal proceedings and dismissed Curiel’s federal petition as untimely.
- The Ninth Circuit (en banc) held that the California Supreme Court’s citation to Swain and Duvall signaled a denial for inadequate pleading (i.e., not an untimeliness bar) and therefore overruled the lower courts’ untimeliness rulings; Curiel is entitled to statutory tolling for the entire pendency of his state collateral proceedings, making his federal petition timely.
Issues
| Issue | Curiel’s Argument | State/Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Curiel’s federal petition was time‑barred under AEDPA absent tolling | State petitions were "properly filed" and tolled AEDPA; thus federal petition is timely | State argued earlier state denials (Superior Court and Court of Appeal) showed untimeliness and therefore those periods do not toll | Held for Curiel: because CA Supreme Court’s denial signaled pleading deficiency (not untimeliness), all state proceedings were "properly filed" and tolled AEDPA; federal petition timely |
| How to interpret CA Supreme Court’s denial citing Swain and Duvall | Swain/Duvall indicate dismissal for pleading defects (leave to amend/refile), not a timeliness bar | State contended Swain citation could indicate untimeliness or supported the lower courts’ untimeliness rulings | Held for Curiel: Swain + Duvall together mean dismissal for failure to plead with particularity (equivalent to demurrer); that implies the petition was timely and the CA Supreme Court overruled lower courts’ untimeliness holdings |
| Whether a summary denial by the CA Supreme Court requires looking through to lower courts or stands alone | Curiel: where the last state court explains its rationale (via citations), that is the controlling, reasoned decision | State: lower courts’ reasoned untimeliness denials should control; summary denial does not necessarily overrule them | Held: Federal courts must treat the last reasoned decision as controlling; where the CA Supreme Court’s citations reveal its rationale, its determination (here that petition was timely but inadequately pleaded) governs and tolling applies for full pendency |
| Whether equitable tolling needed to be resolved | Curiel alternatively argued equitable tolling (counsel delay in returning file) | Government rejected equitable tolling as unnecessary if statutory tolling fails | Held: Court did not reach equitable tolling because statutory tolling rendered petition timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (untimely state petitions are not "properly filed" for AEDPA tolling)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (look‑through rule and treatment of state procedural denials)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (California’s "reasonableness" timeliness standard; timeliness judged by highest state court to act)
- Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (summary denials and the signaling effect of particular citation patterns)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 ("look‑through" presumption for unexplained orders)
- In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300 (requirement to plead habeas claims with particularity; leave to amend/refile)
- People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464 (pleading particularity and evidence requirements in California habeas practice)
- In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (guidance on interpreting summary denials and citations by CA Supreme Court)