(HC) Rymalowicz v. Gipson
1:13-cv-00711
E.D. Cal.May 18, 2015Background
- Petitioner Paul Rymalowicz filed a federal habeas petition challenging his 2010 conviction; the operative second amended petition was filed in 2014.
- Petitioner did not appeal his 2010 conviction; under California law his conviction became final on June 29, 2010, so AEDPA’s one-year limitations period began June 30, 2010 and expired June 29, 2011.
- Petitioner filed his federal petition on May 3, 2013, well after the AEDPA deadline, and his first California habeas petition was filed on January 27, 2013 (after the limitations period had expired).
- Respondent moved to dismiss the second amended petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and unexhausted under § 2254(b)(1). The magistrate judge reviewed the motion under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
- Petitioner invoked actual innocence and equitable tolling; the court found his showing amounted to a claim of legal (plea) coercion, not new factual innocence, and therefore failed to meet the Schlup standard to overcome the timeliness bar.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss on timeliness and lack of exhaustion grounds and advised the parties of the 21‑day objection period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition is barred by AEDPA one‑year limitation | Rymalowicz contends actual innocence (and equitable tolling) excuses untimeliness | Gipson argues petition was filed well after the limitations period and no tolling applies | Petition untimely; actual‑innocence showing fails Schlup/McQuiggin gateway |
| Whether statutory tolling under §2244(d)(2) applies | Rymalowicz relies on state collateral filings for tolling | Gipson notes state petitions were filed after AEDPA deadline expired, so no tolling | No statutory tolling; state filings were filed after limitations period ran |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Rymalowicz claims actual innocence and diligence justify tolling | Gipson argues delay is unexplained and petitioner shows legal, not factual, innocence | Equitable exception not met; Schlup standard not satisfied |
| Whether claims are exhausted in state court | Rymalowicz did not present claims to California Supreme Court before filing in federal court | Gipson states none of the second amended petition claims were presented to the state high court | Petition unexhausted; dismissal required for lack of exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence can excuse AEDPA time bar through Schlup gateway)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (demanding standard for actual‑innocence gateway)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (relation‑back principles for amended habeas claims)
- Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2003) (no statutory tolling when limitations period already expired)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (rules on equitable tolling and stay‑and‑abeyance procedures)