Mace v. Montgomery
3:16-cv-01802
S.D. Cal.Sep 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner William T. Mace was convicted by jury on October 17, 2011 of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder and sentenced to 50 years to life.
- California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on March 27, 2014; the California Supreme Court summarily denied review on June 11, 2014. No certiorari was filed.
- Petitioner filed state habeas petitions in San Diego Superior Court (Sept. 23, 2015) and the California Court of Appeal (Dec. 7, 2015); both were denied on the merits.
- Petitioner filed federal habeas petitions in January 2016; an initial petition was dismissed without prejudice for procedural defects, and Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition on August 10, 2016 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, and trial-court error regarding a defense witness.
- Magistrate Judge Crawford recommended dismissal as time-barred under AEDPA because the judgment became final on September 9, 2014 and Petitioner did not file a federal habeas petition within the one-year AEDPA limitations period nor seek equitable tolling.
- The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the First Amended Petition with prejudice on September 1, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amended Petition is timely under AEDPA | Mace contends his claims should proceed (filed federal petitions in Jan. 2016 and amended Aug. 2016) | Respondent argues AEDPA one-year clock expired Sept. 9, 2015 and no tolling applies | Petition is time-barred and dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Mace did not assert or present evidence supporting equitable tolling | Montgomery argues no basis for equitable tolling in record | Court found no equitable tolling shown |
| Whether magistrate’s R&R requires de novo review absent objections | Mace filed no objections to the R&R | Montgomery relied on procedural rule that no objections waive de novo review | Court adopted R&R without de novo review since no objections were filed |
| Whether prior state habeas filings tolled AEDPA limitations | Mace’s later state petitions were filed after AEDPA deadline | Montgomery asserts late state habeas filings do not revive expired federal limitations | Court held the earlier deadline was not revived; petitions filed after deadline do not save federal filing time |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (judgment becomes final for AEDPA purposes upon conclusion of direct review or expiration of time for seeking certiorari)
- Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court need not conduct de novo review of a magistrate judge’s R&R when no party objects)
- United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court must perform de novo review of R&R only when timely objections are filed)