Page v. Palmer, No. 3:2008cv00536 - Document 24 (D. Nev. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Rs' 15 Motion to Dismiss. The Court finds the federal habeas petition was untimely filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the 10 Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that P is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/27/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
> *- e .,.> .. -.. . . tf - - uI.;uJ:LD T . 7% 1 - --.. ' v '' '1' L'L ?');;' .k-U--7.. 1 .'k '' .............. uy(: .;!,u.j, .J . ? 0C' f2 7 Jjj g l ) j k / 2 i :5 -''..a::;--. -. -. u... E.. -:.. -.2... 4 5 UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO UR T 6 DISTRIC T O F NEVA DA 7 8 9 l0 1l JOHN HENRY PAGE, Petitioner, vs. JACK PALM ER,etal., 12 13 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:08-cv-0536-RCJ-VPC ORDER / 14 15 Thisaction isapetition forwrïtofhabeascorpuspursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 2254 bypro l6 se petitionerJohn Page,a Nevadaprisoner. Before the Courtisrespondents'm otion to dismiss 17 (docket#15). Page v. Palmer l8 Doc. 24 1. ProceduralH iston r 19 20 21 22 23 On December 16, 1982,petitioncrwasindicted in the Eighth JudicialDistrictCourt forClark County w ith attem pted robbel'y w ith the use ofa deadly weapon and murdcrwith theuse of a deadly w eapon. ExhibitA.1Petitionerentered into aguilty plea to second degree murder.Exhibit B. The attempted robbel'y countwas dism issed. 1d. Petitionerw asconvicted on January 19,1983. /#. On M arch 7,1983 the statc districtcourtsentcnced petitioner to life imprisonmentw ith the 24 possibilityofparole.1d.A judgmentofconvictionwasenteredonMarch 11,1983.fJ.Petitioncr 25 26 l The cxhibits cited in this order in the fonn çsExhibit ,''are those fled by respondents in supportoftheirm otion to dism iss,and are located in the record atdocket//15. 1 didnotappealhisjudgmcntofconviction. 2 On June l3,2007,petitioncrtiled apetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,alleging (1)his 3 conviction w asinvalid underthefederalconstitutionalguarantees ofdue process,equalprotection, 4 andtheeffectivcassistanceofcounselbecauseofhisabsenceduringthegrandjuryproceedings,(2) 5 hisplea wasnotentered knowingly,intelligently,and voluntarily ashe w asnotcom petentto enter 6 into aguilty pleaagreement,(3)hewasdeprivedofhisrightto dueprocessandhisrightto counsel 7 ashewasneveradvisedofhisrightto appealhisconviction,(4)hisguiltypleawasnotknowingly, 8 intelligently,and voluntarily entered into ascounseltold petitioner he w ould notreceive m ore than 9 5veyearsinprison,(5)thetrialcourtdeniedpetitionerhisrightsto equalprotectionanddueprocess 10 when itacceptedhisguiltypleaand sentencedllir. nwithoutadvising him ofhisrightto appeal,(6)he l1 w asdenied hisFifth,Sixth,and Fourtecnth Am endm cntrights to the effective assistanceofcounsel 12 w hen counselfailed to properly advisc him ofthe consequencesofhisplea and failed to efrectively 13 conununicatewith him,and (7)hewasdcnied hisFihh,Sixth and Fourteenth Amendmentrightsto 14 the effective assistance ofcounsclwhen counsclfailed to consultwith him regarding hisrightto 15 appcal,and failed to file a notice ofappealon hisbehalf. ExhibitC. 16 The state districtcourtdism issed thehabeas corpuspetitionerasuntimely. ExhibitD . 17 Petitioner appealed the dismissal. f#. On April24,2008,the N cvada Suprem e Courtafhrm ed the l8 lowercourt's dism issalofhis statehabeascorpuspetition,tinding thatthe petition wasuntim ely asit 19 wasfiledmorethantwenty-fourycarsatterentryofthejudgmentofconvictionandmorethan 20 thirteen ycarsatterthe effective date ofNRS 34.726. fJ. Thecourtalso found thatpetitionerhad 21 notshowncauseandprcjudiceforthedelay,ascounsel'sfailureto advisepetitionerofhisrightstoa 22 directappealdid notconstitute good cause to excuse an untimely habeaspetition. ld. Rem ittitur 23 issued on M ay 20,2008. ExhibitE. 24 Pctitionerm ailed a tbderalhabeascorpuspetition to thisCourton June 20,2008 25 (docket#10).Respondcntshavemovedto dismissthepetition,arguingthepetitionisuntimely,or 26 alternatively,thatthegroundswereproeedurallydefaulted (docket//15). Petitioneropposesthe 1 motiontodismiss(docket//2l). 2 Il. M otion to Dism iss 3 A . A ED PA Statute ofLim itations 4 TheAntiterrorism and EffectiveDeath Pcnalty Act(AEDPA)amendedthestatutes 5 controlling federalhabeascorpus practice to include a one-ycarstatute oflim itationson the tiling of 6 federalhabeascorpuspetitions. W ith respectto the statute oflirnitations,the habeascorpusstatute 7 provides: 8 (d)(1)A l-yearperiod oflimitatîon shallapplyto an application 9 judgmentofaStatecourt.Thelimitationperiodshallrunfrom the fora writofhabeas corpusby aperson in custody pursuantto the latestof- 10 11 (A)thedateonwhichthejudgmentbecamefmalbythe conclusion ofdirectreview orthe expiration ofthe tim e for seeking such review ' 12 13 (B)thcdatconwhich theimpedimentto tiling an 14 application created by State action in violation ofthe Constitution orlaws ofthe United Statesisrem oved,ifthe applicantwasprevented 9om filing by such State action' , 15 (C)thedateon whichtheconstitutionalrightasserted was l6 initially rccognized by the Suprem e Court,ifthc righthas bccn ncw ly recognized by the Suprem e Courtand made retroactively applicable to caseson collateralreview ;or 17 (D)thedatconwhich thefactualpredicateoftheclaim or 18 claim spresented could havebeen discovered through the exercise ofduediligence. 19 20 2l (2)Thetimeduringwhich aproperlyfled applicationforState post-conviction orothercollateralreview w ith respectto the pertinentjudgmentorclaim ispendingshallnotbecountedtoward any period oflim itationsunderthissubsection. 22 23 28 U.S.C.j2244(d). Forconvictionsthatbecamefmalpriorto theenactmentoftheAEDPA,a pctitionerhad untilApril24,1997 to tilc a federalhabeas corpuspetition. Patterson v.Stewart,251 24 25 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir.2001). TheAEDPA lim itationsperîod istolled while açiproperly filed application''forpost 26 conviction orothercollateralrelicfispending beforeastatecourt.28 U.S.C.j2244(d)(2).The 3 1 U nited States Supreme Courthas statcd thatto be properly tiled,a petitionermustcomply w ith a 2 state'stim e lim its forfiling an application forpostconviction orothercollateralrelief Pace v. 3 DiGuglielmo,544 U.S.408,414-17 (2005)(holdingEitime lirnits,no mattertheirfonu,are ifiling' 4 conditions''andnotingifastatecourtrejectsapetitioner'shabeaspetitionasuntimelythenthe 5 petition isnot'tproperlyfiled''underthcstatuteand statutory tolling isnotproper). 6 7 B. Application to the InstantCase lnthepresentcase,petitionerwasconvicted on January 19,1983. A judgmentof 8 conviction w asentered prior to thc cnactm entofthe AEDPA on M arch 11,1983. Therefore, 9 petitionerhad untilApril24,1997,to tile a federalhabeascorpuspetition,unlessthe limitations 10 period w asothenvise tollcd. There isno indication thatpetitioner tiled any post-conviction petitions l1 ormotions in the state courtsthattolled thetime fortiling a federalpetition. Petitionertiled a state 12 habeas corpuspetition on June 13,2007. Thisstatepctition w asnotproperly tiled and thusdid not l3 tollthe tim e for filing a federalhabeascorpuspetition,as the state courts found thepetition w as 14 untimely tiled. Pace,544 U .S.at414-17. M oreover,petitions filed aftcrthe one-yeartim e Iim itation 15 hasalreadycxpircddo nottollthelimitationsperiod. Green v.White,223 F.3d 1001,1003(9th Cir. 16 2000)(petitioncrisnotentitled to tollingwherethetimelimitationundertheAEDPA hasalready 17 run). 18 Thefederalhabeascorpuspetition w asuntimely filed by approxim ately ten years. The l9 petition isuntim ely and willbe dism isscd unlessthepetitionercan show thathe isentitled to equitable 20 tolling ofthe lim itationsperiod. 21 22 C. Equitable Tolling TheAEDPA one-yearlimitationsperiod issubjectto equitabletolling.See Calderon 23 v.UnitedStatesDistrictCourt(Beeler),128F.3d 1283,1288(9thCir.1997),overruledinpart(?,1 24 othergrounds,Calderon v.United StatesDistrictCourt(KeIIy),163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1998). 25 Equitable tolling isavailable çûifextraordinaly circumstancesbeyond a prisoner'scontrolmake it 26 im possible to tile a petition on tim e.'' Beeler,128 F.3d at 1288. G enerally,a litigantseeking 4 l equitablctolling bcarsthcburdenofestablishing two ekments:(1)thathchasbeenpursuing his 2 rightsdiligently,and (2)thatsomeextraordinarycircumstancestood in hisway.''Pace%'. 3 DiGuglielmo,544 U.S.408,418(2005). 4 PetitionerstatesthatthisCourtshould considerhispctition because he had a rightto a 5 directappealunderNevada 1aw and w asdcprived ofthatright. Pctitionerhasnotshow n thatthe 6 lim itationspcriod should be equitably tolled. Trialcounsel'salleged failure in tiling an appealor in 7 advising petitionerofhisdirectappcalrights isnotan extraordinal' y circum stance w arranting 8 equitabletolling.Randlev.Crawford,578F.3d 1177,ll86 (9th Cir.2009). Petitionerhasnot 9 shown thatthe lim itationsperiod should be equitably tolled. The Courtw illgrantthe motion to 10 dism issthe petition,asthe federalpetition wasuntim ely tiled. The Courtw illnotaddress 1l respondents'arguments thatthe claim swere procedurally defaulted. 12 111.Certilicate ofAppealability 13 In orderto proceed w ith an appeal9om this Court,petitioner mustreceive a 14 certificateofappealability.28 U.S.C.j2253(c)(1). Gencrally,apetitionermustmakeçtasubstantial 15 show ing ofthe dcnialofa constitutionalright''to w arranta certitk ate ofappealability. 1d. The 16 SupremcCourthasheldthatapetitioner's mustdemonstratethatrcasonablejuristswouldtindthe 17 districtcourt'sassessmentofthe constitutionalclaim sdebatable orw rong.'' Slack v.M cllaniel,529 18 U.S.473,484 (2000). 19 W here a courthasdism issed a petitioncr'shabeascorpuspetition on procedural 20 grounds,howevcr,the detenuination ofwhethera ccrtiticate ofappealability issuesbecom es a two21 parttest. The Suprem e Courthasstated thatundersuch circum stances: 22 A COA shouldissuewhentheprisonershows...thatjuristsofreason 23 denialofaconstitutionalrightand thatjuristsofreasonwould fmd it would fmd itdebatable whetherthepetition statesa valid claim ofthe debatablew hetherthedistrictcourtw ascorrectin itsproceduralruling. 24 ld.SeealsoMiller-Elv.Cockrell,537U.S.322,337-38(2003).Thereforc,inorderto obtaina 25 COA in casesdism issed on proccduralgrounds,petitionerhasthe burden ofdem onstrating both that 26 hewasdeniedavalidconstitutionalrightandthatjuristsofreasonwouldfinditdebatablewhether 5 thc court'sproceduralnlling w ascorrect. In caseswhere there isa plain proccduralbarto a petitioner'sclaim sand thedistrictcourtiscorrectto invoke thatproceduralbarto dispose ofthe case,6(areasonablejuristcould notconcludeeitherthatthedistrictcourterredindismissingthe petition orthatthe petitionershould be allowed to proceed further.'' Slack,529 U .S.at484. ln the presentcase,petitioner'shabeaspctition isbeing dism issed asthepetition w as untimelyfiled.TheCourtdidnotreachthemeritsofpetitioner'sclaims.Noreasonablejuristcould conclude thatthisCourt'sruling w asin error. Petitionerisnotentitled to acertificate of appealability. IT ISTHEREFORE OIIDERED thatrespondents'motiontodismiss(docket//15) is GIG N TED . The Courtfm ds thatthe federalhabeascorpuspetition wasuntim ely filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thepctition (docket#10)isDISM ISSED W ITH PREJUD IC E. IT IS FURTH ER O RD ERED thatpetitionerisDENIED a certiticate of appealability. DATEDthis 1 dayofOctober,2009. UN ITED ST 6 ES DISTRICT JUDG E