(HC) Watkins v. Knowles et al, No. 2:2009cv00363 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/09 recommending that respondent's 04/21/09 motion to dismiss 12 be denied; and respondent be directed to file an answer to the petition within 60 days. MOTION to DISMISS 12 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Watkins v. Knowles et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NOEL KEITH WATKINS, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-0363 WBS DAD P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the May 3, 2006 decision of the California 18 Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) to deny him parole. On February 17, 2009, the undersigned 19 ordered respondent to file and serve a response to the petition. On April 21, 2009, respondent 20 filed the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner’s habeas petition is both procedurally 21 barred and time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 22 (“AEDPA”). Petitioner has filed a timely opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. 23 Respondent has not filed a reply. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On May 3, 2006, the Board found petitioner unsuitable for parole. The Board’s 26 decision became final on August 31, 2006. On August 22, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 writ of habeas corpus in the Solano County Superior Court challenging the Board’s 2006 2 decision. On November 9, 2007, the Solano County Superior Court transferred the petition to the 3 Contra Costa County Superior Court. On December 18, 2007, the Contra Costa County Superior 4 Court denied the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to submit a complete copy of the 5 transcript of the parole hearing. The court also noted that, while it rested it decision on 6 petitioner’s failure to support his petition with that necessary exhibit, the petition also presented 7 issues related to timeliness since it was filed a year after the Board’s decision had become final 8 and included no explanation for the filing delay. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ 9 of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District which was 10 summarily denied on May 20, 2008. Finally, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 11 in the California Supreme Court which was also summarily denied on December 23, 2008. 12 (Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, Exs. 1-5.) Petitioner filed his federal petition on January 3, 2009. 13 14 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Respondent argues that petitioner’s federal habeas petition is procedurally barred. 15 Specifically, respondent contends that the state courts denied petitioner’s habeas petitions as 16 untimely, which is an adequate and independent state law ground for denying relief. According 17 to respondent, under California law a petitioner must timely file his claims and an unjustified 18 delay in presenting those claims bars a court from considering the merits of a habeas petition. 19 Respondent acknowledges that a habeas petitioner in state court may avoid the timeliness bar by 20 showing the absence of a substantial delay or an exception to the untimeliness bar. Respondent 21 argues that in this case, however, petitioner failed to provide any explanation to the state courts 22 as to why he did not file his first state habeas petition until almost a year after the Board denied 23 him parole. Respondent asserts that petitioner also failed to demonstrate that he falls within an 24 exception to the timeliness requirement. (Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4.) 25 26 Next, respondent argues that petitioner’s federal habeas petition is time-barred. In this regard, respondent acknowledges that the proper filing of a state post-conviction application 2 1 presenting the pertinent claims tolls the one-year statute of limitations for the filing of a federal 2 petition. However, respondent argues that in a reasoned decision the Contra Costa County 3 Superior Court denied petitioner’s petition for habeas relief due to his failure to provide an 4 adequate record and for untimeliness. Respondent contends that, because the state court 5 explicitly denied the state petition as untimely, petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling while 6 that petition was pending in state court. Respondent also contends that petitioner is not entitled 7 to statutory tolling while his petitions before the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court 8 were pending because those courts upheld the Contra Costa County Superior Court’s denial of 9 relief in unexplained orders. According to respondent, this court should consider these later 10 unexplained orders to be based on untimeliness grounds as well. Therefore, respondent 11 contends, petitioner is not entitled to any tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations from 12 August 31, 2006, through August 31, 2007, rendering his federal habeas petition time-barred. 13 (Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) 14 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION 15 Petitioner has filed an opposition to respondent’s motion arguing that although the 16 Solano County Superior Court did not receive his petition for filing until September 13, 2007, he 17 actually submitted his petition to the prison law librarian on or about August 25, 2007 for 18 mailing and witnessed the librarian place it in the legal mail box at California Medical Facility 19 (“CMF”) on the same day. According to petitioner, that the Solano County Superior Court did 20 not receive the petition until several weeks later was the fault of CMF mail room staff. (Pet’r’s 21 Opp’n to Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2-3.) 22 Petitioner also argues that several other circumstances delayed his filing of his 23 first state habeas petition. For example, petitioner contends that although at one point he had 24 access to the law library for two to four hours per week, but for the most part, he only had access 25 to the library for two hours every two weeks. Petitioner also contends that he suffers from 26 chronic arthritis as well as inflammation of the heart and lungs. According to petitioner, on May 3 1 29, 2007, he suffered an “episode” of severe chest pain and was taken to the emergency room for 2 four hours where he received nitro and oxygen. Petitioner notes that anytime he suffers such an 3 “episode,” he becomes extremely weak for one to two weeks thereafter. (Pet’r’s Opp’n to 4 Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4.) 5 6 ANALYSIS Respondent’s arguments for dismissal based upon procedural default and 7 untimeliness hinge entirely on the premise that the Contra Costa County Superior Court denied 8 petitioner’s habeas petition as untimely. However, after careful review of that court’s decision, 9 the undersigned concludes that respondent’s motion to dismiss lacks a factual basis. Specifically, 10 the Contra Costa County Superior Court denied petitioner’s habeas petition on the ground that he 11 failed to support the petition by submitting a complete copy of the transcript of the parole hearing 12 that resulted in the challenged decision to deny parole. This court is not persuaded that the 13 Contra Costa County Superior Court also denied the petition on timeliness grounds. 14 In relevant part, the Superior Court’s decision provides: 15 The Exhibits supporting the Petition are Incomplete 16 Petitioner contends that the evidence at the parole hearing did not support the denial of parole, and that the practices of the Board of Parole Hearings violate due process of law. Petitioner has included numerous exhibits along with his petition. After careful examination of the petition and the supporting exhibits, the court concludes that it does not have before it the evidence necessary for a determination of the merits of the writ. The transcript of the parole hearing accompanying the writ contains only the opening, pages one and two, and the conclusion, pages eighty-four to ninety-two. The portion of the transcript delineating the substantive evidence adduced at the hearing is not included in the exhibit provided by petitioner. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 All the exhibits necessary for a complete understanding of a case must be provided by the petitioner. Because the necessary exhibit is missing, the petition is denied. 24 Timeliness 25 26 The court rests its decision upon the failure of petitioner to support his petition with the necessary exhibits, and in view of the 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 incomplete record refrains from reaching other conclusions. However, the court notes that the petition before it presents problems of timeliness. The parole hearing was held on May 3, 2006, and the decision became final on August 31, 2006. The habeas corpus petition was not filed until September 13, 2007. At that time the petition was filed in the wrong venue, Solano County. Later, on November 9, 2007, this court received the petition when it was transferred on the order of the Superior Court sitting in Solano County. A habeas corpus petition should be filed without substantial delay following the events which gave rise to the petition. If there has been substantial delay, petitioner should show good cause for the delay, or some specific legal exception which permits filing the petition. The petition now before the court was filed in the wrong venue more than a year after the decision of the Board of Parole Hearing became final and presents no explanation for the delay in filing. (internal references and citations omitted) 10 11 12 (Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 3) (emphasis added). To be sure, the Contra Costa County Superior Court made a number of 13 observations regarding the timeliness of petitioner’s habeas petition in its decision denying 14 habeas relief, but this court cannot say that the court denied the petition as untimely, thereby 15 procedurally barring review of petitioner’s federal habeas claims or precluding statutory tolling 16 for the time that petitioner’s three habeas petitions were pending in state court. In fact, the court 17 expressly stated in addressing the timeliness of the petition, presumably for the sake of clarity, 18 that “[t]he court rests its decision upon the failure of petitioner to support his petition with the 19 necessary exhibits, and in view of the incomplete record refrains from reaching other 20 conclusions.” Id. See, e.g., Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989) (procedural default is 21 inapplicable “unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly 22 states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar”) (internal quotations omitted); Thorson v. 23 Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007) (habeas petitioner not entitled to statutory tolling if 24 “the California Supreme Court clearly rejected [the] petition as untimely”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 25 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005) (habeas petitioner not entitled to statutory tolling if “it is clear 26 that the [state] court was denying [the] petition as untimely”); Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 5 1 1308, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1994) (procedural default cannot be based on “an ambiguous order that 2 did not clearly rest on independent and adequate state grounds”). 3 4 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition as procedurally barred and untimely should be denied. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Respondent’s April 21, 2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No 12) be denied; and 8 2. Respondent be directed to file an answer to the petition within sixty days. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 11 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 15 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: December 10, 2009. 18 19 20 21 DAD:9 watk0363.157 22 23 24 25 26 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
