(HC) Cavazos v. Foss
1:19-cv-00208
| E.D. Cal. | Jul 18, 2019Background
- Petitioner Ronnie J. Cavazos filed a federal habeas petition signed December 11, 2018; the petition is subject to AEDPA one-year limitation rules.
- California Court of Appeal issued a decision on September 28, 2016, vacating certain sentences and directing resentencing; California Supreme Court denied review December 21, 2016.
- Superior Court resentenced Petitioner on March 8, 2017; Petitioner’s certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied October 2, 2017.
- The AEDPA limitations period began October 3, 2017; absent tolling, the federal deadline was October 2, 2018.
- Petitioner filed no state collateral (post-conviction) petitions, made no equitable-tolling showing, and did not file the federal petition until after the limitations period expired.
- The magistrate judge reviewed Respondent’s motion to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and recommended dismissal with prejudice as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Cavazos' Argument | Foss' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) | Petition filed Dec. 11, 2018 (mailbox rule) — arguably timely? | Limitations began Oct. 3, 2017; deadline Oct. 2, 2018; petition filed after deadline | Petition is untimely; recommend dismissal with prejudice |
| Statutory tolling (§ 2244(d)(2)) | (No state collateral filings to toll) | No pending properly filed state collateral review to toll limitations | No statutory tolling; petition remains untimely |
| Equitable tolling | Petitioner did not assert or present facts supporting equitable tolling | No extraordinary circumstances or diligence shown | Equitable tolling denied; no basis to extend limitations |
| Procedural vehicle for review | (No specific dispute raised) | Motion to dismiss may be reviewed under Rule 4 in lieu of answer | Court reviewed dismissal motion under Rule 4 and found dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applies to petitions filed after enactment)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (definition of "properly filed" for statutory tolling)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (tolling while a full round of state collateral review is pending)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (tolling and delays between state filings)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (standards for equitable tolling under AEDPA)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (relation of state filing timeliness to statutory tolling)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (mailbox rule for prisoners' filings)
- O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (Rule 4 used to evaluate certain dismissal motions in §2254 cases)