Jared Martin v. R. Fisher, Jr
2:20-cv-09527
C.D. Cal.Nov 5, 2020Background
- Petitioner Jared Martin (pro se) filed a Section 2254 habeas petition raising eight grounds (claims of government/prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, duress/coercion, actual innocence, Confrontation/ due process violations arising from a no-contest plea).
- Martin pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a deadly weapon in 2003; sentencing was January 13, 2007. He did not file a direct appeal; judgment became final March 14, 2007, making an AEDPA deadline of March 13, 2008 absent tolling.
- Martin filed a Los Angeles Superior Court habeas petition (July 31, 2020; denied Aug. 25, 2020) and a California Supreme Court habeas petition dated September 2, 2020; the federal petition was constructively filed Sept. 23, 2020.
- The district court found two threshold procedural defects: (1) unclear whether Martin exhausted his state remedies because his California Supreme Court petition’s disposition was not shown; and (2) the federal petition appears untimely under AEDPA because Martin waited years after his conviction became final before seeking state relief.
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause giving Martin until December 7, 2020 to (a) provide proof the California Supreme Court has ruled (or case number), (b) request a Rhines stay with required showings, or (c) voluntarily dismiss; the court warned it would recommend dismissal for failure to exhaust, untimeliness, and failure to prosecute if Martin failed to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies | Martin says he presented claims to the California Supreme Court (attached Sept. 2, 2020 petition). | The state/respondent (and court) note the state petition’s status is unclear; if still pending, federal exhaustion is incomplete and the petition must be dismissed without prejudice. | Court ordered Martin to show cause and prove exhaustion (case number or decision) or elect a Rhines stay or dismissal; failure to respond will lead to recommended dismissal for non-exhaustion. |
| AEDPA statute of limitations (timeliness) | Martin filed federal habeas in 2020 and implies tolling or actual innocence; does not concede untimeliness in petition. | AEDPA one-year period ran from judgment finality (March 14, 2007) → deadline March 13, 2008; Martin’s federal filing is therefore facially untimely absent tolling. | Court found the petition appears time-barred and ordered Martin to show cause by Dec. 7, 2020 why the court should not recommend dismissal as untimely. |
| Statutory/equitable tolling and actual innocence gateway | Martin alleges actual innocence and coercion by counsel and requested state habeas relief in 2020 (statutory tolling argument). | No properly filed state petitions were pending within the AEDPA period to toll; Martin offered no facts showing entitlement to equitable tolling or new reliable evidence of innocence. | Court explained standards for statutory tolling, equitable tolling, and Schlup actual innocence gateway and required Martin to allege facts/evidence meeting those standards or concede untimeliness. |
| Request for mandamus/relief against state courts | Martin attached a handwritten mandamus-style petition seeking state-court relief. | Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts. | Court noted lack of jurisdiction over mandamus to state courts and that such relief is unavailable in this federal forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (state-court exhaustion requirement for federal habeas petitions)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (fair presentation requirement to give state courts opportunity to address federal claims)
- Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2008) (operative facts and federal legal theory must be presented to state courts)
- Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996) (discussion of fair presentation and exhaustion principles)
- Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O'Sullivan exhaustion rule in California context)
- Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may raise exhaustion sua sponte and dismiss without prejudice)
- Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se petition constructively filed when handed to prison authorities)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (district courts may consider timeliness sua sponte and dismiss after opportunity to respond)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (finality when time for seeking direct review expires)
- Larsen v. Soto, 742 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (section 2244(d) does not restart after limitations period has expired before state petition)
- Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2003) (limitations period cannot be revived by later state filings)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (standard for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (equitable tolling principles reaffirmed)
- Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009) (equitable tolling applied sparingly)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence may overcome procedural barriers, including timeliness)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standards for actual innocence gateway)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (Schlup standard applied in habeas context)
- Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory tolling)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (petitioner bears burden to prove equitable tolling)