Raymundo Martinez v. A. Hedgephed
2:12-cv-03824
| C.D. Cal. | Oct 15, 2012Background
- Petitioner Martinez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on May 2, 2012 challenging a California state-court robbery conviction.
- Judgment finality date for direct review was March 25, 2002 (sixty days after resentencing), triggering a March 25, 2003 AEDPA deadline absent tolling.
- Martinez was resentenced on January 24, 2002; he did not file a direct appeal of the resentencing.
- Petitioner filed multiple state petitions for collateral relief beginning in 2009, after the AEDPA deadline had expired.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the federal petition as untimely; Martinez did not oppose timely dismissal.
- Court ruled that the petition was untimely and not eligible for statutory or equitable tolling, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA § 2244(d). | Martinez argues tolling could render timely. | Martinez’s tolling claims fail; deadline expired in 2003. | Petition untimely; deadline expired March 25, 2003. |
| Whether statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) applies. | State petitions tolled the statute. | Tolling does not apply before a state petition is properly filed and post-deadline petitions do not retroactively toll. | No statutory tolling; first state petition filed June 25, 2009. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies in this case. | Extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing. | No extraordinary circumstances shown; petitioner acted with insufficient diligence. | No equitable tolling; petition remains untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2003) (mailbox rule requires timely delivery and lack of counsel)
- Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 1999) (no tolling during interstitial time between finality and next state petition)
- Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2001) (timeliness tolling principles for state petitions)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (proportions of extraordinary circumstances and diligence for equitable tolling)
- Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (high bar for equitable tolling to avoid undermining AEDPA)