Knight v. Diaz

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CLARENCE V. KNIGHT, Case No.: 18CV2884 AJB (BGS)

12 Petitioner,

REPORT AND

13 v. RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

14 RALPH DIAZ,

DISMISS PETITIONER’S PETITION

15 Respondent. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

16

17 Petitioner Clarence V. Knight (hereinafter “Petitioner” or “Knight”) is a California

18 Prisoner proceeding pro se. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (ECF 1.) Pending before the Court is

20 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition (“Motion”). (ECF 15.) Respondent argues

21 the Petition should be dismissed because it is untimely under the applicable one-year

22 statute of limitations, procedurally defaulted, and fails to allege a federal constitutional

23 question. (Id.) Petitioner has filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

24 (“Opposition”) and Respondent a Reply. (ECF 22, 23.)

25 The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the Hon. Anthony J.

26 Battaglia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the United

27 States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Court has considered

28 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner’s Opposition, the Petition, and all exhibits

1 and lodgments submitted by Petitioner and Respondent. For the reasons set forth below,

2 this Court recommends Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

3 I. BACKGROUND1

4 A. Conviction and Sentence

5 A jury found Petitioner guilty of robbery and first-degree murder in 1979. He was

6 sentenced to 12-years for the robbery conviction and a consecutive 25 years-to-life for

7 the first-degree murder conviction.

8 B. Parole Board’s January 9, 2015 Decision

9 Petitioner received a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing on January 9, 2015.

10 (Lodgment 3.) Petitioner did not appear for the Hearing.2 (Id. at 5-7, 17.3) The Board

11 recounted his background, the circumstances of his crimes, his rules violations in

12 custody, work history, and plans if released. (Id. at 8-19.) After hearing from

13 Petitioner’s counsel, the Board found Petitioner unsuitable for parole because he posed a

14 current risk of danger if released.4 (Id. at 20-27.)

15 The Board calculated his base term under the matrix at 29 years.5 (Id. at 26.) The

16 Board then considered how long he should remain incarcerated before another parole

17 hearing was held and determined five years was appropriate. (Id. at 26-27.)

18

19

1 The procedural history is presented chronologically, although where relevant, the Court

20

notes Respondent’s categories (first and second rounds of petitions) to clarify which

21 petitions are being summarized.

2 Respondent’s Motion asserts that Petitioner appeared before the Board for the Hearing.

22

However, the transcript reflects that Petitioner was not personally present for the Hearing,

23 although his counsel was present. (Lodgment 3 at 5-7, 17.) Petitioner refused to

participate and his counsel’s request for postponement was denied for lack of good cause.

24

(Id.)

25 3 The Court cites each lodgment’s pagination rather than the CM/ECF pagination unless

otherwise noted because the lodgments submitted to the Court by Respondent lack the

26

CM/ECF pagination.

27 4 That determination is not at issue in this Petition.

5 As discussed more below, (see infra I.E) Board regulations at the time set out a matrix

28

1 C. Petitioner’s State Habeas Petitions

2 1. August 25, 2015 Petition to the Superior Court6

3 The first state habeas petition filed by Petitioner after the January 9, 2015 Board

4 decision was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on August 25, 2015. (Lodgment

5 4.) It appears it was then transferred to San Diego Superior Court where a ruling was

6 issued on December 17, 2015. (Lodgment 5.)

7 In this petition, Petitioner argues that the 29-year base term the Board calculated

8 using the matrix was causing him to serve an excessive sentence. (Lodgment 4 at ii.)

9 The crux of his argument seems to be that a matrix calculation that can result in a 29-year

10 base term for a conviction for which he received 25-to-life cannot be rational and is

11 excessive. (Id. at iii.) He argues the 29-year base term resulted in him serving more than

12 the total amount of time he believes he was sentenced to. (Id. at i-ii, iv (“I’ve served the

13 entire sentence imposed by the sentencing court” and “For my term of imprisonment has

14 expired.”) After indicating he began serving his life sentence September 3, 1987,

15 Petitioner asserts that his “term expired 4/2012 at 33 years.” (Id. at i.) He argues he

16

17

Regs., tit. 15, § 2403. Although Petitioner was not found suitable for parole, at the time

18

of Petitioner’s January 9, 2015 hearing, the Board was also calculating base terms for

19 prisoners even when they were found not suitable for parole. See In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th

728, 736 (2018) (discussing December 2013 settlement that “required the Board to

20

calculate an inmate’s base and adjusted base terms at the inmate’s initial parole hearing

21 (or, for inmates who already had their initial hearing, at the inmate’s next scheduled

parole hearing).”).

22

6 Respondent refers to this petition as having been constructively filed on September 27,

23 2015, however, the Petition is file stamped August 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015. The

Court assumes the August 25, 2015 stamp is from the Sacramento Superior Court and the

24

November 5, 2015 stamp was applied when the petition was transferred to the San Diego

25 Superior Court . The San Diego Superior Court’s decision denying the petition

references the petition as having been filed on November 5, 2015. (Lodgment 5 at 2.) It

26

appears the September 27, 2015 date Respondent references is from a proof of service to

27 a later submission of a page that was missing from the original submission. (See ECF 16-

4 at CM/ECF page 118 (August 25, 2015 proof of service for petition) and ECF 16-4 at

28

1 should have been released at 33 years and has already served more than 37 years and,

2 with the five years until his next parole hearing, he would not be considered for release

3 again until he served 42 years. (Id. at i, iv.) Petitioner attaches the transcript of the

4 Subsequent Parole Board Hearing, including the Board decision, his sentencing chart

5 from 1979, the transcript of his 1979 sentencing hearing, and a September 2, 1975

6 Chairman’s Directive No. 75/30.

7 The Superior Court denied the petition on December 17, 2015. (Lodgment 5.) The

8 court found the Board’s decision to deny parole was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or

9 unsupported by facts. (Id. at 4.) As to Petitioner’s argument regarding the 29-year base

10 term, the court found his incarceration beyond the 29-year base term was not excessive or

11 cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment given he was convicted of

12 first-degree murder for the shooting of a woman during a robbery. (Id. at 4-6.) The court

13 also explained that Petitioner’s assertion the sentence was excessive “ignores the fact that

14 the maximum term he could serve based on the sentence imposed by the court is a life

15 term.” (Id. at 6.)

16 2. January 4, 2016 Petition to the Court of Appeal

17 Petitioner filed a petition with the Fourth District Court of Appeal on January 4,

18 2016. (Lodgment 6 [ECF 16-6].) He asserts largely the same arguments he raised in his

19 petition to the Superior Court, including that his term expired in April 2012 at 33 years,

20 that the new matrix is irrational because its application to him results in him serving at

21 least 42 years, and that he has served the statutory maximum sentence. (ECF 16-6 at 19-

22 20, 22, 27-31.7) Again, he appears to think that his indeterminate sentence of 25 years-

23 to-life was somehow capped at 25 years and the Board’s determination of a 29-year base

24 term that resulted in him serving more than 25 years for the first-degree murder

25 conviction was excessive. (Id. at 32 (arguing the Determinate Sentencing Law “put[] a

26

27

28

1 lid on the 25-to-life”), 35, 38 (“Determinate Sentencing Act enacted . . . to dispel

2 indeterminate sentences, fix terms for parole/release . . .”).) Petitioner includes the same

3 set of attachments included with his petition to the Superior Court.

4 The Court of Appeal denied this petition on January 14, 2016. (Lodgment 7.) The

5 court found Petitioner’s continued incarceration was not arbitrary or unreasonable given

6 he was convicted of first-degree murder for fatally shooting the victim during the course

7 of a drug related robbery. (Id. at 2-3.) The court then directly addresses Petitioner’s

8 argument regarding the Determinate Sentencing Law, explaining that his reliance on it

9 was misplaced because he received an indeterminate sentence that does not have a fixed

10 term or duration. (Id. at 3 (emphasis added).) The court goes on to explain that his

11 maximum term was life and the Board denying parole or setting his base term at 29 years

12 is not imposing a new or additional punishment. (Id.) Rather, the Board was “simply

13 declin[ing] to exercise its ameliorative power to set a lesser term” than the life term

14 imposed. (Id.)

15 3. February 11, 2016 Petition to California Supreme Court

16 Petitioner filed a petition with the California Supreme Court on February 11, 2016.

17 (Lodgment 8 [ECF 16-8].) He asserts the same arguments he raised in his prior petitions

18 to the Superior Court and Court of Appeal, including that the new matrix is irrational

19 because its application to him results in him serving at least 42 years, that his

20 indeterminate sentence was fixed at 25 years, and the 29-year base term calculated on the

21 matrix results in him serving an excessive sentence. (Id. at 8, 12, 16-18, 21-22, 24-25,

22 32-37.8) In addition to the same attachments he submitted with his Superior Court and

23 Court of Appeal petitions, Petitioner also includes the Superior Court and Court of

24 Appeal decisions. The California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on April

25 27, 2016.

26

27

28

1 4. April 22, 2018 Petition to Superior Court

2 Petitioner’s next petition is not filed until April 22, 20189 and he files it with the

3 San Diego Superior Court. (Lodgment 10 [ECF 16-10].) Respondent refers to this

4 petition as the first in Petitioner’s second round of petitions.

5 In this petition, he states that he is “challeng[ing] the constitutionality of exceeding

6 the fixed base term and adjusted base term of life serving Petitioner which continues

7 confinement in violation of the” 14th Amendment and the constitutionality of the “limits

8 of the [B]oard’s purview beyond the fixing of the base and adjusted base terms of

9 indeterminate term serving prisoners.” (Id. at 4, 9.10) He explains that his base term was

10 fixed at 29 years and that base term has expired. (Id.) Although not entirely clear, it

11 appears he is again arguing that he was entitled to a fixed sentence under the Determinate

12 Sentencing Law and that sentence was the maximum period of time that was

13 constitutionally proportionate to his crime. (Id. at 5-6.) However, he does assert at one

14 point that he “is not challenging how the base term was fixed, although the rationale of its

15 fixing by the new matrix does not reflect what the statute provides.” (Id. at 7.) He seems

16 to again be arguing that a fixed term for his crime is required under the Determinate

17 Sentencing Law and that the Board is exceeding its jurisdiction by keeping him in

18 custody beyond that fixed term. (Id. at 6-7.) He again attaches as an exhibit, and he

19 references in the petition, the September 2, 1975 Chairman’s Directive No. 75/30 he

20 attached to his prior petitions. (Id. at 15-27.)]

21 The Superior Court denied the petition on May 30, 2018. (Lodgment 11.) The

22 court found these were the same claims raised in his prior petitions and denied it on that

23 basis. (Id. at 1-2.) The court explains that it is the policy of the court to deny new habeas

24

25

26

27 9 The Superior Court’s file stamp on this petition lacks any date, but the petition and

proof of service are both dated April 22, 2018. (Lodgment 10.)

28

1 applications based on the same grounds absent a change in the law or facts warranting

2 reconsideration. (Id. at 2.)

3 5. June 17, 2018 Petition to the Court of Appeal

4 Petitioner’s June 17, 2018 petition to the Court of Appeal is largely a duplication

5 of his April 22, 2018 petition to the Superior Court. (Lodgment 12.) It varies only in that

6 it includes a document titled Judicial Notice followed by a copy of the Superior Court’s

7 May 30, 2018 denial. Petitioner states in the Judicial Notice document that his

8 “challenge to the constitutionality of exceeding a fixed base term established by the

9 Board has not been alleged nor heard on the merits by this Petitioner,” presumably to

10 address the Superior Court’s determination that he previously raised this challenge. (ECF

11 16-12 at 3.11) Like his Superior Court petition, he argues the Board is exceeding its

12 jurisdiction or authority in violation of Due Process by holding him beyond the 29-year

13 base term set by the Board. (ECF 16-12 at 8-15.) However, like the Superior Court

14 petition, he repeats arguments made in all his earlier petitions, arguing he was entitled to

15 a fixed sentence that could not be “refixed upwards” by the Board under the Determinant

16 Sentencing Law. (ECF 16-12 at 10.) Again, like the Superior Court petition, he seems to

17 attempt to disavow any challenge to the fixing of the 29-year base term, presumably to

18 distinguish this petition from his prior petitions on this issue, briefly stating that he “is not

19 challenging how the base term was fixed,” but he goes on to state, “the rationale of its

20 fixing by the new matrix does not reflect what the statute provides.” (ECF 16-12 at 11.)

21 The Court of Appeal denied this petition on June 27, 2018. (Lodgment 13.) The

22 court noted Petitioner’s prior habeas filings with the Court of Appeal, the January 4, 2016

23 petition (Lodgment 6, see supra I.C.2) and another petition.12 As relevant to this case,

24

25

11 The Court references the CM/ECF pagination for Lodgment 12.

26

12 The other petition referenced by the Court of Appeal (Case No. D070041), was a

27 challenge to the Board’s determination that Petitioner was not suitable for parole based

on dangerousness. Petitioner specifically indicates in his Petition before this Court that

28

1 the court explained that his January 4, 2016 petition challenged his confinement for a

2 period longer than the 29-year based term calculated by the Board as violating federal

3 and state due process rights. (Id. at 1.) The court explicitly rejected his claim that his

4 challenge to exceeding the fixed base term had not been alleged or heard before and

5 found the petition was a repetitious “abuse of the writ” in denying it. (Id. at 2.) The

6 court cites In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 769 (1993), In re Martin, 44 Cal. 3d 1, 27 n.3

7 (1987) and In re Reno, 55 Cal. 4th 428, 496-97 (2012).

8 6. July 3, 2018 Petition to the California Supreme Court

9 The July 3, 2018 petition filed with California Supreme Court duplicates the April

10 22, 2018 petition to the Superior Court and June 17, 2018 petition to the Court of Appeal.

11 (Lodgment 14.) It varies only in that the exhibits attached to it include the state court

12 decisions issued on his April 22, 2018 and June 17, 2018 petitions, (ECF 16-14 at 37-38,

13 41-50, 76-77, and 80-9113), and declarations14 from Petitioner. (ECF 16-14 at 39-40, 78-

14 79.) In the declaration, he asserts that the fixing of the base term and exceeding that base

15 term are wholly separate matters and argues that he has never challenged exceeding the

16 base term. (ECF 16-14 at 39-40 and 78-79.)

17 The California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on November 14,

18 2018 without citation to any cases. (Lodgment 15.)

19 D. Federal Petition

20 The Petition currently before the Court was filed on December 20, 2018. (ECF 1.)

21 Although discussed more fully below in analyzing the issues raised in the Motion to

22 Dismiss, in short, Petitioner challenges “exceeding the base term and continued

23

24

25 (Petition at 5.) Additionally, neither Respondent nor Petitioner has relied on that petition

here with regard to the statute of limitations and, as noted below, (see infra II.A.3), the

26

period this petition was pending before the Court of Appeal would have no effect on the

27 calculation of the statute of limitations because it had already expired.

13 The Court references the CM/ECF pagination for Lodgment 14.

28

1 retention” beyond the 29-year base term set by the Board. (Id. at 4-21.) He appears to

2 argue he was entitled to release at the conclusion of his 29-year base term because

3 indeterminate sentences are prohibited under the Determinate Sentencing Law. (Id. at 4-

4 6, 10-11, 16-23.) In essence, he argues that at some point his indeterminate 25-to-life

5 sentence for first-degree murder became a determinate sentence of either 25 years or 29-

6 years and he has been in custody more than 29 years. (Id.)

7 Respondent characterized the Petition has containing two challenges, one based on

8 Petitioner being in custody more than the base term and one challenging the calculation

9 of Petitioner’s base term to be 29 years.15 This is understandable because, although the

10 Petition disavows any claim based on the calculation it also states the calculation was

11 wrong. However, as explained below, Petitioner’s Opposition makes clear he is not

12 claiming in this Petition that his base term calculation was wrong, only that he is entitled

13 to a determinate sentence, at the latest, the 29-year base term. (Opp’n at 2, 4-6, 8.)

14 E. Base Terms

15 As summarized above, Petitioner’s base term was set at 29 years at his Hearing

16 even though he was found not suitable for parole. “[T]he base term is established ‘solely

17 on the gravity of the base offense, taking into account all of the circumstances of that

18 crime.’” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Cal. Code Reg.

19 tit. 15 § 2282(a)). At the time of Petitioner’s Hearing,16 the Board used a matrix in the

20 regulations to calculate a prisoner’s base term. See In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th 728, 734-736,

21 734 (2018) (citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2403(a)); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §

22

23

15 Mot. at 5-7 (addressing untimeliness of challenge based on calculation of 29-year base

24

term), 8-9 (addressing lack of federal habeas jurisdiction for challenge base on

25 calculation of 29-year base term under California law), 7-8 (addressing untimeliness of

challenge based on being held beyond base term) and 9-10 (addressing procedural default

26

of challenged based on being held beyond the base term).

27 16 “[B]ase terms no longer play a defined role in determining the release day for any

inmate sentenced to an indeterminate sentence.” In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th at 738, 742

28

1 2403(b). For those convicted of murder, like Petitioner, the matrix provided causes of

2 death on one axis and descriptions of the relationship to the victim on the other with the

3 base term based on the intersection of the two. Id; see also § 2403(b). The intersection

4 then provided an upper, middle, and lower term with the middle as the default, upper for

5 aggravating circumstances and lower for mitigating circumstances. Id. at 734-35. The

6 Hearing transcript reflects the Board looked to the first-degree murder matrix with no

7 prior relationship with the victim and no aggravation or mitigation in calculating a base

8 term of 29 years. (Lodgment 3 at 26.)

9 At the time of Petitioner’s January 9, 2015 hearing, California regulations only

10 required the Board to determine a base term for a prisoner that had been found suitable

11 for parole, but under a December 2013 settlement agreement, the Board was calculating

12 base terms even for inmates, like Petitioner, that had not been found suitable for parole.

13 In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th 728, 734-736, 742 (2018) (citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §

14 2403(a)). An inmate was still not entitled to release at the conclusion of the base term

15 unless the inmate had already been found suitable for parole. “[B]ase term calculations

16 were designed to set forth an inmate’s minimum sentence.” Id. at 746. For those, like

17 Petitioner, that had not been found suitable for parole, the base term “had the salutary

18 rehabilitative effect of informing each inmate of his or her earliest possible release date, if

19 found suitable for parole.” Id. at 742 (emphasis added). Inmates remained ineligible for

20 release until found suitable for parole. Id. at 745 (“The Board may not . . . release an

21 inmate until the individual no longer poses a threat to ‘public safety’ regardless of any

22 base term calculation.”); see also Pearson, 639 F.3d at 1188 n. 3.

23 II. DISCUSSION

24 Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition arguing it is untimely, procedurally

25 defaulted, and fails to allege a federal constitutional question. The Court addresses each

26 below.

27 ///

28 ///

1 A. One-Year Statute of Limitations

2 1. Applicable Law

3 The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“ADEPA”)

4 establishes a one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition. 28

5 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1). There are four possible start dates for ADEPA’s statute of

6 limitations under § 2244(d)(1). The statute provides:

7 A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

8

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

9 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

10

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

11 by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States

is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

12

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

13 recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized

by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on

14

collateral review; or

15 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

16

diligence.

17

18 § 2241(d)(1) (emphasis added). As explained below, (II.A.3), Petitioner’s claim is

19 subject to subsection (D).

20 The statute of limitations may also be subject to both statutory and equitable

21 tolling. § 2244(d)(2); Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010) (finding AEDPA’s

22 statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling).

23 a) Statutory Tolling

24 Section 2244(d)(2) provides that “[t]he time during which a properly filed

25 application for State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pending shall not be

26 counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

27 State habeas petitions filed after the statute of limitations period ends do not revive a

28 limitations period that has already ended before the state petition was filed. See Ferguson

1 v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“section 2244(d) does not permit re-

2 initiation of the limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed.”)

3 b) Equitable Tolling

4 AEDPA’s statute of limitations is also subject to equitable tolling. Holland, 560

5 U.S. at 645. “To be entitled to equitable tolling, [Petitioner] must show, ‘(1) that he has

6 been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

7 his way’ and prevented him from filing.” Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37

8 (2007) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)) Equitable tolling is

9 unavailable in most cases, and “the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling is very

10 high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th

11 Cir. 2002).

12 2. Parties’ Positions

13 In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent addresses two different issues as separate

14 claims: (1) a challenge to the Board’s calculation of a 29-year base term and (2) a

15 challenge to remaining in custody beyond that 29-year term. Respondent argues both

16 claims were filed beyond AEDPA’s statute of limitations – 751 days late for a claim

17 based on the calculation of the base term and 471 days late as to incarceration beyond the

18 29-year base term. However, because Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion explicitly

19 indicates that Petitioner is not challenging the calculation of the base term, only being

20 held beyond that term, (Opp’n. 2, 4-6, 8), the Court only summarizes Respondent’s

21 calculation of the statute of limitations for a claim based on being in custody beyond the

22 29-year base term.17 As to this issue, Respondent argues the statute of limitations started

23 on September 5, 2016, the day after Petitioner had served 29 years on his life term, and

24

25

26

17 The Court notes however that any claim based on the Board decision, including the

27 calculation of the 29-year base term, is clearly also barred by AEDPA’s statute of

limitations because it would have started on May 9, 2015 and expired in 2017 even with

28

1 expired one year later on September 4, 2017, more than a year before the federal Petition

2 was filed. Respondent explains that Petitioner knew on May 9, 2015, when the January

3 9, 2015 Board decision became final, that the Board was applying a 29-year base term.

4 Respondent argues that at that point, Petitioner simply had to add 29 years to September

5 4, 1987 (the date he began serving his life sentence for first-degree murder) to discover

6 he would serve 29 years on his life sentence on September 4, 2016. AEDPA’s statute of

7 limitations began running the next day and expired on September 4, 2017. Respondent

8 argues there is no statutory tolling for the later state petitions, filed in 2018 (see supra

9 I.C.4-6), because the statute of limitations had already expired, and there is no basis for

10 equitable tolling.

11 In his Opposition, Petitioner asserts “there are no statutory or other specific time

12 limits for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus” and there is “no AEDPA statute of

13 limitations.” (Opp’n at 5, 7.) He also appears to argue the statute of limitations was not

14 triggered until the 29-year base term was exceeded by a full year. Petitioner agrees that

15 he “began serving his 25 years to life term of imprisonment on or about September 4,

16 1987” and that “the 29th year was September 4, 2016.” (Opp’n at 6.) However, he

17 seems to assert that the statute of limitations was not triggered until “Sept. 3, 2017 one

18 day before the 30th year began which is when the 29th year exceeded.” (Opp’n. at 6.)

19 In Reply, Respondent notes there is no authority supporting Petitioner’s claim that

20 the statute of limitations did not start until he had served 30 years in prison rather than 29

21 years. (Reply at 2-4.) Respondent reiterates that one day after Petitioner served 29 years,

22 his incarceration exceeded the base term and he knew on that date that his incarceration

23 exceeded the 29-year base term. Additionally, Respondent explains that even if the

24 statute of limitations was not triggered until Petitioner was incarcerated for 30 years as he

25 argues, his federal Petition was still untimely because a year passed before he filed his

26 federal Petition and he was not entitled to statutory tolling for any of the 2018 state court

27 petitions because all of them were denied as successive. (Reply at 3 (citing Porter v.

28 Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).)

1 3. Analysis

2 Petitioner’s assertion that there is no AEDPA statute of limitations is wrong. As

3 set forth above, there is a one-year statute of limitations applicable to the Petition. “[T]he

4 one-year limitations period applies to ‘all applications for writ of habeas corpus’ under

5 § 2254, including those challenging state administrative actions.” Mardesich v. Cate, 668

6 F.3d 1164, 1171 (9th Cir. 2012).

7 The start date for the statute of limitations for this Petition is governed by

8 § 2244(d)(1)(D). Id. at 1171-72 (citing Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir.

9 2004) and discussing Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[W]hen a

10 habeas petitioner challenges an administrative decision affecting the ‘fact or duration of

11 his confinement,’ AEDPAs one-year statute of limitations runs from when the ‘factual

12 predicate’ of the habeas claims ‘could have been discovered through the exercise of due

13 diligence.” Id. (quoting § 2244(d)(1)(D)). A challenge based on exceeding the proper

14 term of confinement is subject to §2244 (d)(1)(D) with the factual predicate being not

15 being released when they allege they should have been.18 See Murphy v. Espinoza, 401

16 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“Under Section 2244(d)(1)(D), petitioner was,

17 or with the exercise of due diligence, should have been aware of the factual predicate of

18 this claim no later than . . . the date he believes his sentence should have expired”).

19 Section 2254(d)(1)(D) applies to Petitioner’s claim that he is being incarcerated in excess

20 of the 29-year base term.

21 Under § 2254(d)(1)(D), the factual predicate of Petitioner’s claim is his

22 incarceration in excess of the 29-year base term. AEDPA’s statute of limitations began

23 when he was in custody in excess of 29 years. See Hudson v. Curry, Case No. 06-03716

24 SI, 2007 WL 1430031, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007) (statute of limitations was

25 triggered when petitioner remained in custody beyond date he alleged he should have

26

27

18 To the extent it could be construed as a challenge to the Board’s decision, it is also

28

1 been released); Lang v. Hernandez, Case No. CV 06-4927 RGK (JC), 2008 WL 8114263,

2 at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. March 31, 2008) (same); Butler v. Hill, Case No. 2:13-cv-00567 LKK

3 KJN P, 2013 WL 5799016, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (same); Singleton v. Curry,

4 Case No. C 06-6234 SI, 2007 WL 1068227, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. April 10, 2007) (“The

5 limitations period clock starts ticking when the breach occurs, and here that was when the

6 allegedly agreed-upon date for release arrived and [the petitioner] remained in prison”);

7 Lara v. Curry, Case No. C 06-7149 MHP, 2010 WL 986625, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. March

8 17, 2010) (“The limitations period clock started ticking when . . . the allegedly agreed-

9 upon date for release arrived . . . and [the petitioner] remained in prison). Although this

10 issue arises more commonly when petitioners assert they have completed a specific

11 sentence they were promised at sentencing,19 as in the cases cited above, the same

12 reasoning applies to Petitioner’s challenge based on being incarcerated in excess of the

13 29-year base term. Petitioner knew the factual predicate of his claim no later than the day

14 he remained in custody beyond 29 years.

15 Petitioner asserts that the 29-year base term was not exceeded until September 3rd

16 or 4th of 2017 because that was the day before the 30th year began. (Opp’n at 3 (“His 29

17 year base term would expire on or about September 4, 2017”), 6.) However, there is no

18 dispute that Petitioner’s 25-to-life term for first-degree murder commenced on September

19 4, 1987. Petitioner’s Legal Status Summary indicates that his life term start date was

20 September 4, 1987. (Lodgment 2.) Petitioner indicates the same in his Opposition to the

21 Motion. He states that he “began serving his 25 years to life term of imprisonment on or

22

23

24

19 Petitioner’s claim is unique in that it challenges not being released at the end of a base

25 term even though he was not entitled to release at the end of that base term because he

was not found suitable for parole. As explained above, completion of a base term is not

26

itself sufficient for release. (See supra I.E.) Rather, to be eligible for release, a person in

27 custody must have completed the base term for their particular offense and be found

suitable for parole. See Pearson, 639 F.3d at 1188 n. 3 (“a prisoner may end up serving

28

1 about September 4, 1987.” (Opp’n at 6. ) The statute of limitations ran one year later

2 on September 4, 2017. Petitioner does not cite, and the Court can find no authority for,

3 delaying the start of the statute of limitations an additional year, as Petitioner asserts.

4 Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to calculate the start of the statute of

5 limitations from the date he exhausted his claim in state court, (ECF 22 at 11), that

6 assertion is also without merit. Redd, 343 F.3d at 1083 (quoting Burger v. Scott, 317

7 F.3d 1133, 1138(10th Cir. 2003) (“Congress did not draft the federal limitations period to

8 begin running only at the end of a particular state’s exhaustion process. Instead, the

9 statute is clear that the limitations period starts from the latest of four specific dates.”).

10 The statute of limitations under 2244(d)(1)(D) was triggered as soon as Petitioner

11 was in custody beyond the date he argues he should have been released. Section

12 2244(d)(1) requires the statute of limitations run from “the date on which the factual

13 predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the

14 exercise of due diligence.” “[T]he ‘factual predicate’ of a petitioner’s claims constitutes

15 the ‘vital facts’ underlying those claims.” McAleese v. Brennan, 483 F.3d 206, 214 (9th

16 Cir. 2007). Here, the vital facts were: (1) setting the 29-year base term—known to

17 Petitioner when the Board’s decision became final; and (2) remaining in custody—known

18 to Petitioner when he remained in custody after serving 29 years.21 When Petitioner

19

20

21 20 Although there is some variation in the date Petitioner asserts he began his life term in

various filings in the record, he consistently indicates his life term for first-degree murder

22

began in September 1987. (Pet. at 2 (“25 years to life term started September 9, 1987”),

23 4 (“indeterminate term of imprisonment began approximately September 9, 1987”).

Given the Petition was filed well beyond the statute of limitations, this variance by a few

24

days is of no consequence to the Court’s determination the Petition is untimely.

25 21 Arguably, Petitioner knew the factual predicate even earlier because he knew when the

Board issued its decision that his base term was set at 29 years and he knew he would not

26

be released after serving 29 years because he had been found unsuitable for parole and

27 the Board determined he would not receive another hearing for five years. Five years

after the January 9, 2015 denial was well beyond 29 years. However, the Court relies on

28

1 knew he was still in custody after 29 years on the first-degree murder conviction, he

2 knew the vital facts for his claim that he was being held beyond the base term.

3 Accordingly, he knew the factual predicate of his claim on September 5, 2016 and that is

4 when AEDPA’s statute of limitations started under § 2244(d)(1)(D). Absent statutory or

5 equitable tolling, it expired on September 4, 2017.

6 Petitioner is not entitled to any statutory or equitable tolling. As described in detail

7 above, Petitioner had no state petitions pending during this period. (See supra I.C.3-4.)

8 Petitioner’s first three state petitions had all been denied by the time AEDPA’s statute of

9 limitations started, (see supra I.C.1-3), and the three later state petitions, (see supra

10 I.C.4-6), were filed after the statute of limitations has expired. Petitioner’s final three

11 state petitions were filed in 2018, the earliest more than seven months after AEDPA’s

12 statute of limitations had already expired. Because they were all filed after the statute of

13 limitations has already expired, they do not toll or restart AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

14 Ferguson, 321 F.3d at 823 (“[S]ection 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the

15 limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed”); see also Ford v

16 Gonzalez, 683 F.3d 1230 1237 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Ferguson, 321 F.3d at 823 to

17 conclude a federal petition was time-barred despite the filing of a state petition after

18 expiration of AEDPA’s statute of limitations). Petitioner is not entitled to statutory

19 tolling.

20 Respondent has asserted in the Motion that Petitioner is also not entitled to

21 equitable tolling and Petitioner has not provided any basis for equitable tolling in his

22 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. This alone is sufficient to preclude equitable

23 tolling. Additionally, there is no basis in the Petition to suggest Petitioner is entitled to

24 equitable tolling at any point, but certainly not during the period the statute of limitations

25

26

27 Petitioner’s that involve an anticipated date of release (even when incorrect) and it is the

latest possible start date for the statute of limitations. In this respect, it gives Petitioner

28

1 was running. Given the absence of any basis for it in Petitioner’s Opposition to the

2 Motion to Dismiss, particularly when it was specifically raised by Respondent, or in his

3 Petition, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling either.

4 “[T]he factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through the

5 exercise of due diligence” no later than September 5, 2016. § 2254(d)(1)(D). On that

6 date Petitioner knew, or through the exercise of due diligence should have known, that he

7 was in custody in excess of the 29-year base term. AEDPA’s statute of limitations began

8 on September 5, 2016 and expired on September 4, 2017. Petitioner did not file his

9 federal Petition until December 20, 2018, more than 15 months later.

10 The Court RECOMMENDS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and

11 the Petition23 dismissed as barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

12 B. Procedural Default

13 The Court need not reach the procedural default argument because the Petition is

14 time-barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations and should be dismissed on that basis.24

15

16

17 22 The Petition does mention Petitioner was receiving care in 2015, but there is nothing

suggesting this would have justified equitable tolling even if it had occurred during the

18

relevant time period.

19 23 The only claim asserted in the Petition is based on Petitioner being held in excess of the

29-year base term. (Opp’n at 2 (disclaiming any other basis), 4 (“Petitioner has made

20

only one claim for relief for exceeding the base term and continued retention”), 8.) As

21 set forth above, Petitioner has explicitly disclaimed any claim based on the calculation of

the 29-year base term. Accordingly, the only claim in the Petition is based on being held

22

in excess of the 29-year base term and any claim on that basis is time-barred.

23 24 The Court additionally notes that if the district judge does not dismiss the Petition as

time-barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations, the procedural default issue could be

24

deferred and considered in conjunction with a merits review. See Franklin v. Johnson,

25 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Procedural bar issues are not infrequently more

complex than the merits issues presented by the appeal, so it may well make sense in

26

some instances to proceed to the merits if the result will be the same.”); see also Newsom

27 v Yates, No. 10cv746 WQH-BGS, 2011 WL 1004705, at *3 (“[R]eserving decision on

Respondent’s procedural default contentions until after Respondent answers the

28

1 However, should the district court elect to additionally, or in the alternative, reach the

2 issue, the Petition should also be dismissed as procedurally defaulted.25

3 1. Applicable Law

4 “A federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a state court ‘if the

5 decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal

6 question and adequate to support the judgment.” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 315

7 (2011) (citing Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 55 (2009)). “[A]bsent showings of ‘cause

8 and prejudice,’ federal habeas relief will be unavailable when (1) ‘a state court has

9 declined to address a prisoner’s federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a

10 state procedural requirement,’ and (2) ‘the state judgment rests on independent and

11 adequate state procedural grounds.’” Id. at 316 (quoting Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S.

12 72, 84-85 (1977) and Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991) modified on

13 other grounds by Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 9 (2012)) (internal citations omitted).

14 2. Parties’ Positions

15 Respondent argues Petitioner’s claim challenging being held in excess of the 29-

16 year base term should be dismissed as procedurally defaulted because the California

17 Supreme Court decision relied on an adequate and independent state procedural ground in

18 denying relief. Specifically, the court denied relief based on the petition being

19 successive. (Mot. at 9-10; Reply at 5-6.) Petitioner does not challenge the adequacy or

20 independent of the bar and does not seem to argue cause or actual prejudice to excuse the

21 bar, although he seems to argue the procedural default resulted from a

22

23

24

while procedural default issue must not “invariably be resolved first” ordinarily they

25 should be). Respondent has preserved the procedural default by raising it at the earliest

possible time and, Respondent could renew this basis for dismissal to allow the court to

26

decide if a decision on the merits or the procedural default analysis provide will be most

27 efficient.

25 In this respect, if either party objects to the undersigned recommendation, those

28

1 mischaracterization of his claim in the Superior Court’s December 17, 2015 decision.

2 (Opp’n at 8-9.) He states that denial of his claim based on procedural default will result

3 in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. (Id. at 10.) Additionally, Petitioner argues the

4 California Supreme Court did not clearly and expressly rest its judgment on a state

5 procedural bar. (Id. at 10.)

6 3. Analysis

7 a) State Procedural Bar Applied

8 The opinion of the last state court rendering a judgment in the case must “‘clearly

9 and expressly’ state that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Thomas v.

10 Goldsmith, 979 F. 2d 746, 749 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263

11 (1989)). “Where . . . the last reasoned opinion on the claim explicitly imposes a

12 procedural default, we will presume that a later decision rejecting the claim did not

13 silently disregard that bar and consider the merits.” Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797,

14 803-04 (1991); see also Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991).

15 Here, the California Supreme Court’s November 14, 2018 denial states only that

16 the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without citation to any cases.

17 Accordingly, the Court looks through the California Supreme Court’s silent denial to the

18 California Court of Appeal’s denial as the last reasoned decision. Ylst, 501 U.S. at 804

19 (explaining that courts should “look through” unexplained orders “to the last reasoned

20 decision.”); see also Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)

21 (quoting Ylst, 501 U.S. at 802-06) (“When at least one state court has rendered a reasoned

22 decision, but the last state court to reject a prisoner’s claim issues an order ‘whose text or

23 accompanying opinion does not disclose the reason for the judgment,’ we ‘look through’

24 the mute decision and presume the higher court agreed with and adopted the reasons

25 given by the lower court.”) and Bucci v Busby, No. 2:11-cv-3147 GEB KJN P, 2014 WL

26 4249669, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014) (looking through California Supreme Court’s

27 silent denial to Court of Appeal’s application of successive bar). There is also nothing in

28 the record indicating that the Supreme Court silently ruled on the merits rather than the

1 procedural bar imposed by the Court of Appeal. As noted above, the petition to the

2 California Supreme Court largely duplicates the petition to the Court of Appeal. (See

3 supra I.C.6.) Additionally, there were no orders for additional briefing or any indication

4 from the Supreme Court that they elected to take up and silently deny the petition on the

5 merits rather than agreeing with the Court of Appeal’s denial based on a procedural bar.

6 There is no question that the Court of Appeal’s November 14, 2018 decision rests

7 on California’s state procedural bar on successive petitions. (Lodgment 13.) After

8 summarizing Petitioner’s prior state habeas petitions filed with the Court of Appeal, the

9 opinion is explicit in finding “[h]is repetitious presentation of claims is an abuse of the

10 writ.” (Id. at 2 (citing In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 769 (1993).) To the extent the court’s

11 explicit statement that the petition is repetitious is not in itself sufficient to convey the

12 court is relying on this state bar, the court’s citation of In re Clark makes it clear. The

13 cited portion of Clark addresses successive petitions and, as explained in more detail

14 below, citation to this portion of Clark is an imposition of California’s bar on successive

15 petition. (see infra II.B.3.b).) It is clear that the Court of Appeal declined to address

16 Petitioner’s claim because he failed to meet a state procedural requirement.

17 b) State Bar is Independent and Adequate

18 As noted above, “[a] federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a

19 state court ‘if the decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is

20 independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Walker, 562

21 U.S. at 315.

22 Once the state asserts a state procedural bar, as Respondent has done here, the

23 burden shifts to Petitioner “who must assert ‘specific factual allegations that demonstrate

24 the inadequacy of the state procedure, including citation to authority demonstrating

25 inconsistent application of the rule.’” Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546, 577 (9th Cir.

26 2018) (quoting Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Trieu v.

27 Fox, No. 17-55265, 764 Fed Appx 624, 624 (9th Cir. March 2, 2019) (“[B]ecause the

28 state properly raised this affirmative defense and [the petitioner] did not put its adequacy

1 at issue, the bar applies to this case.”). The burden shifts back to the state if the petitioner

2 meets this burden. Williams, 908 F.3d 546, 577. Here, Respondent has clearly asserted

3 the state procedural bar on successive petitions and Petitioner has failed to put the

4 adequacy of the bar at issue.

5 Respondent has identified Petitioner’s multiple state petitions and the state court’s

6 orders on those petitions, including the Court of Appeal’s June 27, 2018 denial that

7 specifically invokes California’s well-established bar on successive petitions with citation

8 of In re Clark. (Lodgment 13 at 2.) “To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a

9 state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Walker, 562 U.S. at 316

10 (quoting Kindler, 130 S. Ct. at 618); see also La Crosse, 244 F.3d at 704 (“To be

11 ‘adequate,’ the state procedural rule must be ‘strictly or regularly followed’ and

12 ‘consistently applied’”). As discussed briefly above, the citation of In re Clark is an

13 indication the court is imposing the state’s bar on successive petitions. Additionally,

14 numerous district courts to consider the issue have found the same as to this citation.

15 Trieu, 764 Fed. Appx. at 624 (recognizing In re Clark citation as state’s procedural bar

16 against successive petitions); Almeida v. Lewis, No. 1:12-cv-00793 MJS (HC), 2014 WL

17 2979458, at *12-13 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2014) (relying on citation of In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th

18 750, 767-69 as successive petition bar that is firmly established and regularly followed);

19 Briggs v. State, Case No. 15-cv-05809-EMC, 2017 WL 1806495, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 5,

20 2017) (finding In re Clark citation is “rejection of the state habeas petition as

21 successive.”); Bucci, 2014 WL 4249669, at *12 (finding In re Clark successive bar

22 independent and adequate state procedural bar).

23 This shifts the burden to Petitioner to place the defense at issue. Petitioner has not

24 challenged the adequacy or independence of the successive bar. Accordingly, the Court

25 “finds that In re Clark’s bar on successive petitions constitutes an independent and

26 adequate state procedural ground.” Bucci, 2014 WL 4249669 at *12. Although the

27 Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue in a published decision, numerous

28 district courts have concluded it is an independent and adequate bar. Bucci, 2014 WL

1 4249669, at *12 (citing Arroyo v. Curry, No. C 07-03718 SBA (PR), 2009 WL 723877,

2 at *5 (N.D. Cal. March 18, 2009) and Rutledge v. Katovich, No. C 08-5738 MMC (PR),

3 2012 WL 2054975, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012)); Flowers v. Foulk, No. C 14-

4 0589CW, 2016 WL 4611554, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2016 (collecting cases)

5 (“California’s bar against successive petitions is also adequate and independent.”);

6 Briggs, 2017 WL 1806495, at *6; Almeida, 2014 WL 2979458, at *13 (finding

7 procedural bar on successive petitions firmly established and regularly followed and

8 upholding procedural bar); Bigg v. Ylst, No CIV S-04-2667-MCE-CMK-P, 2006 WL

9 3001175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2006) (finding Clark’s bars independent since In re

10 Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770 (1998) and successive petition bar well established and

11 consistently applied) (citing Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 1308, 1318 (9th Cir. 1994)).

12 Additionally, in this case, the independence of the bar is clear. “A state procedural

13 rule constitutes an ‘independent’ bar if it is not interwoven with federal law or dependent

14 upon a federal constitutional ruling.” Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 924 (9th Cir.

15 2007). “A state law ground is so interwoven if the state has made application of the

16 procedural bar depend on an antecedent ruling on federal law such as the determination

17 of whether federal constitutional error has been committed.” La Crosse, 244 F.3d at 704

18 (citations omitted). The decision explicitly invokes the rule as an independent basis for

19 its decision and it in no way depends on federal law. There is nothing in the decision

20 suggesting the ruling is interwoven or related to any federal or constitutional ruling. In

21 this respect, the imposition of the procedural bar is independent.

22 The state bar is independent and adequate. Absent an exception, the state

23 procedural bar applies.

24 c) Cause and Prejudice

25 “In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court

26 pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of

27 the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual

28 prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to

1 consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman, 501

2 U.S. at 750; see also Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058, 2064 (2017) (“[A] federal court

3 may not review federal claims that were procedurally defaulted in state court—that is,

4 claims that the state court denied based on an adequate and independent state procedural

5 rule.”). Petitioner has not demonstrated cause and prejudice.

6 As an initial matter, it appears from the Opposition that Petitioner is not relying on

7 a showing of cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default, but instead seeks relief

8 based on the miscarriage of justice exception discussed below. (See infra II.B.3.d).) He

9 states, “although Petitioner never constructively alleged cause and prejudice, but instead

10 contends that denying federal review of his claim (where the state court failed to do) will

11 result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” (Opp’n at 10.) Given Petitioner seems to

12 concede he is not attempting to show cause and prejudice, the Court finds he has not

13 shown either based on that concession.

14 However, even if Petitioner is not electing to focus exclusively on the miscarriage

15 of justice exception and intended to show cause and prejudice, he has failed to do so.

16 (1) Cause

17 “To establish cause . . . the [petitioner] must ‘show that some objective factor

18 external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural

19 rule.’” Davila, 137 S. Ct. at 2065 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)).

20 “A factor is external to the defense if it ‘cannot fairly be attributable’ to the prisoner.” Id.

21 “For example, ‘a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably

22 available to counsel, . . . or that some interference by officials . . . made compliance

23 impracticable, would constitute cause under this standard.’” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753

24 (quoting Murray, 477 U.S. at 488).

25 It appears Petitioner may be arguing the Superior Court’s December 17, 2015

26

27

28

1 decision denying him relief is the cause of his procedural default. (Opp’n at 8-10.)

2 More specifically, Petitioner cites the “December 17, 2015 denial order at [page] 6 lines

3 9-11” and argues that this misrepresentation of the fact in the December 17, 2015

4 decision is the reason for the Superior Court’s May 30, 2018 denial of relief. (Opp’n at

5 8-9.) The cited text reads “The fact that petitioner has served six years beyond his 29-

6 year base term does not, on its own establish that his continued incarceration is excessive,

7 or cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment.” (Lodgment 5 at 6.) It

8 appears Petitioner thinks that because the December 17, 2015 decision indicates that at

9 that time he had served six years beyond the 29-year base term, this caused the Superior

10 Court to decide his 2018 petition was raising the same grounds as his earlier petitions.

11 Assuming a Superior Court decision can be considered the cause of Petitioner’s

12 failure to comply with state procedural rules, Petitioner has still failed to show cause for

13 the default.27 Petitioner’s assertion that two lines of the December 17, 2015 decision

14 “infected” the “entire process for Petitioner’s sought relief regarding challenge to the

15 constitutionality of exceeding the base term” is not persuasive. (Opp’n at 9.) First, even

16 if the Court assumes two lines of the Superior Court’s December 17, 2015 decision could

17 be considered the reason for the Superior Court’s later May 30, 2018 denial of relief, this

18

19

20

26 As noted above, it appears Petitioner is advancing this argument for purposes of

21 showing a miscarriage of justice, however, the Court has analyzed it as to cause out of an

abundance of caution.

22

27 If this is a unique attempt to challenge the state court’s determination that the bar

23 applies, that is not an argument the Court can consider. See Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d

573, 584 (9th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases) (rejecting claim that state court improperly

24

applied a state bar and concluding that “[f]ederal habeas courts lack jurisdiction . . . to

25 review state court applications of state procedural rules.”); see also Bradford v. Davis,

923 F.3d 599, 610 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[D]istrict court erred in analyzing whether [the

26

petitioner] met the justification requirements pursuant to California law” on timeliness);

27 Trieu, 764 Fed Appx at 624-25 (Finding the court could not “review the legitimacy of’

the state court’s application of Clark’s procedural bar against successive or piecemeal

28

1 Court is not looking to the May 30, 2018 decision, it is considering the last reasoned

2 decision, i.e. the Court of Appeal’s June 27, 2018 decision. (See supra II.B.3.a) (looking

3 through to Court of Appeal’s June 27, 2018 denial).) Second, Petitioner’s cause

4 argument ignores that Petitioner submitted a petition to the Court of Appeal in which he

5 explicitly stated that “Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of exceeding a fixed

6 base term established by the Board has not been heard on the merits by this Petitioner.”

7 (ECF 16-12 at 3.) And more significantly, the Court of Appeal acknowledges this

8 argument and rejects it. (Lodgment 13 at 1.) Third, the Court of Appeal does not discuss

9 or rely on either of the Superior Court decisions Petitioner relies on, but instead relies on

10 Petitioner’s prior petition to the Court of Appeal. (Id.) The Court of Appeal goes on to

11 makes its own findings regarding the prior petitions, contravening the idea that the

12 Superior Court’s 2015 two-line statement somehow caused the Court of Appeal to

13 impose a procedural bar it otherwise would not have imposed. There is simply no basis

14 to conclude a Superior Court decision issued in 2015, with three intervening state court

15 decisions and four intervening petitions from Petitioner, caused the Court of Appeal to

16 impose a procedural bar and that it is the reason Petitioner’s petition was successive.

17 Petitioner has not shown cause.

18 (2) Prejudice

19 When, as here, a petitioner fails to show cause for the default, the “court need not

20 consider whether he suffered actual prejudice.” Roberts v. Arave, 847 F.2d 528, 530 n. 3

21 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Engle v. Issac, 456 U.S. 107, 134 n. 43 (1982)); Smith v. Murray,

22 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1985). However, should the district judge elect to reach the issue,

23 Petitioner has also not shown prejudice.

24 Petitioner must show “actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal

25 law.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. “‘[P]rejudice’ is actual harm resulting from the alleged

26 constitutional violation.” Thomas, 945 F.2d at 1123 (quoting Magby v. Wawrzaszek, 741

27 F.2d 240, 244 (9th Cir. 1984)). Showing “actual prejudice” to overcome procedural

28 default “requires the petitioner to establish ‘not merely that the errors at trial created a

1 possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage,

2 infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.’” Bradford, 923 F.3d at

3 613 (quoting Murray, 477 U.S. at 494).

4 Petitioner has not alleged an underlying federal violation. Although Petitioner

5 labels his claim a violation of Due Process, that label alone cannot transform a purely

6 state law issue into a federal one. Petitioner claims that he was entitled to release after

7 completion of the 29-year base term because indeterminate sentences are prohibited

8 under the Determinate Sentencing law. He is essentially arguing that despite the

9 imposition of a indeterminate life sentence for first-degree murder, the authority given to

10 the Board under California law to determine when or if to grant parole to life serving

11 inmates, and the Board’s finding (not challenged here) that Petitioner is not suitable for

12 parole), that under California’s Determinate Sentencing Law his indeterminate 25-to-life

13 sentence became determinate and he was entitled to release at the end of the base term of

14 29 years. This is an issue of California state law. It is not a federal violation.28 A

15 petitioner cannot transform a state law issue into a federal one by labeling it a due process

16

17

28 The Court notes even if it were considered a federal violation, Petitioner has suffered

18

no actual harm in not having it heard because it has no basis in fact or law. Because

19 Petitioner was sentenced after the passage of the Determinate Sentencing Law, he was

sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence under the Determinate Sentencing Law. In

20

this respect, the passage of it did not convert Petitioner’s indeterminate 25-to-life

21 sentence into a determinate one. Additionally, the Determinate Sentencing Law did not

eliminate indeterminate sentences as Petitioner argues. See In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th at 745

22

(explaining continued use of indeterminate sentences “for a circumscribed group of

23 offenders.”). Rather, indeterminate sentences were preserved for a smaller group of

offenses, like Petitioner’s conviction for first-degree murder. See id.; In re Dannenberg,

24

34 Cal. 4th 1061, 1096 (2005) (Explaining indeterminate sentences reserved for “a much

25 narrower category of serious crimes and offenders.”) And, inmates, like Petitioner,

serving indeterminate sentences are not entitled to fixed terms. See In re Butler, 4 Cal.

26

5th at 745 (discussing In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th at 1096 finding the same). “[A]

27 defendant under an indeterminate sentence has no vested right to have his sentence fixed

at . . . [a] period less than the maximum sentence provided by statute.” In re Dannenberg,

28

1 violation. See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir.1996). Courts “cannot treat

2 a mere error of state law, if one occurred, as a denial of due process; otherwise, every

3 erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come here as a federal

4 constitutional question.” Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1083 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006).

5 Petitioner has not shown prejudice.

6 d) Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice

7 As noted above, Petitioner states that rather than showing cause and prejudice, he

8 “instead contends that denying federal review of his claim (where the state court failed to

9 do) will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” (Opp’n at 10.) Petitioner then

10 states that he “has demonstrated the unreasonable determinations of fact” in the Superior

11 Court’s December 17, 2015 decision. (Id.)

12 “[A] petitioner overcomes procedural default if he presents sufficient evidence to

13 ‘demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage

14 of justice.’” Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Coleman,

15 501 U.S. at 750). “To make this showing, a petitioner’s case must fall within the ‘narrow

16 class of cases . . . involving extraordinary instances when a constitutional violation

17 probably has caused the conviction of one innocent of the crime.’” Id. (quoting

18 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494 (1991)). To pass through this “actual innocence

19 procedural gateway,” a petitioner “must show that, in light of all available evidence, it is

20 more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict him of the relevant crime.”

21 Id. (citation omitted.) “[T]enable actual-innocence gateway pleas are rare. A petitioner

22 does not meet the threshold requirement unless he persuades the district court that, in

23 light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him

24 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2014).

25 As is evident from a reading of this standard, this exception does not apply here.

26 Petitioner is not attempting to show, based on new evidence, that no reasonable jury

27 would convict him of first-degree murder. The claim itself merely asserts that under

28 California law his indeterminate life sentence became determinate at some point after he

1 was sentenced, and he should be released. His innocence is not at issue. Even the more

2 analogous, but completely inapplicable, standard for death penalty sentences would not

3 apply. It requires a petitioner show “by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a

4 constitutional error no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner eligible for the

5 death penalty under the applicable state law.” Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386, 393 (2004).

6 Even assuming this standard could be extended to a noncapital sentence, it would not

7 apply because Petitioner is not challenging the sentence imposed when he was convicted

8 of first-degree murder. As explained in more detail below, this exception simply does not

9 extend to the type of claim Petitioner is asserting.

10 “[A]lthough the actual innocence exception applies in the capital sentencing

11 context, neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has determined whether that

12 exception applies to noncapital sentences” like Petitioner’s 25-to-life sentence. Sivak v.

13 Christensen, Case No 1:16-cv-00189-BLW, 2018 WL 4643043, *7 (D. Idaho Sept. 27,

14 2018) (citing Dretke, 541 U.S. at 393-94 (2004) and Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190,

15 1195 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also McCutcheon v. Arizona, No CV-15-0512-PHX-PGR,

16 2016 WL 8257606, *6 n.10 (D. Ariz. September 29, 2016). In Dretke, the Supreme

17 Court declined to reach whether actual innocence could be extended to noncapital

18 sentencing, and in Marrero, the Ninth Circuit declined to consider whether a claim of

19 actual innocence could be asserted in noncapital sentencing for purposes of the similar

20 escape hatch rule of §§ 2241 and 2255. Dretke, 541 U.S. at 393-94 (declining to decide

21 whether actual innocence exception should be extended to challenges of noncapital

22 sentencing error because lower court had not addressed other non-defaulted claims first);

23 Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1194-95 (noting other circuits’ exceptions to the general rule that a

24 petitioner cannot be actually innocent of noncapital sentence, but declining to endorse

25 any because none are met). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s claim is not

26 eligible for the miscarriage of justice exception because his claim does not challenge his

27 conviction or involve a capital sentence.

28

1 Even assuming that the actual innocence exception could be extended to noncapital

2 sentencing, that is not even the issue asserted here. Petitioner is not claiming his 25-to-

3 life sentence for first-degree murder was improperly imposed based on a constitutional

4 violation. He is arguing that as a matter of California law his indeterminate 25-to-life

5 sentence became determinate and he is entitled to release. In this respect, the Court

6 would not only have to find actual innocence should be extended to noncapital

7 sentencing, a position rejected by some courts,29 but also extend it to a challenge alleging

8 a change in state law30 that allegedly altered the sentence imposed following conviction.

9 The Court declines to make these extensions because a claim of actual innocence does

10 not make sense in this context. Unlike a petitioner that might argue that but for a

11 constitutional error, he would not have been found eligible for the death penalty or,

12 assuming an extension to noncapital sentencing, a sentencing enhancement, there is

13 nothing for Petitioner to be actually innocent of that would change his indeterminate life

14 sentence to a determinate one. Petitioner is not entitled to relief from the procedural

15 default based on the miscarriage of justice exception.31

16 Federal habeas relief is unavailable because the state court decision relies on an

17 independent and adequate state procedural ground and Petitioner has failed to show cause

18 for the default or actual prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The

19 undersigned RECOMMENDS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on this basis be

20

21

29 See Sivak, 2018 WL 4643043, *7 (collecting other circuit decisions concluding a

22

person cannot be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence).

23 30 The Court notes, as discussed above, there has been no change in California state law

that converted Petitioner’s indeterminate life sentence to a determinate one. (II.B.3.c)(2)

24

at n. 28.)

25 31 Although “actual innocence, if proved serves as a gateway through which a petitioner

may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar . . . or . . . expiration of the statute

26

of limitations,” Petitioner did not raise this exception with regard to the statute of

27 limitations. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013). However, the exception

would fail as an exception to the statute of limitations for the same reason; it simple does

28

1 GRANTED.

2 C. Federally Cognizable

3 As noted above, Respondent’s Motion differentiated between two separate claims

4 in the Petition, one based on the calculation of the base term and one based on Petitioner

5 being in custody beyond the base term. (See supra A.2.) In the Motion to Dismiss,

6 Respondent seeks dismissal of a claim based on the calculation of the 29-year base term

7 arguing that it is an issue of state law that does not rise to the level of a federal question.

8 (Mot. at 8-9.) As discussed above, Petitioner has clarified in his Opposition that his

9 Petition is not asserting a claim based on the calculation of the 29-year base term, and he

10 is only pursuing a claim based on being held beyond the 29-year base term. Accordingly,

11 like Respondent’s argument regarding the statute of limitations on this issue, the Court

12 need not address it.

13 In the Reply brief, Respondent argues that because Petitioner’s challenge to his

14 continued incarceration beyond the base term is a challenge based solely on the

15 application of state law, the allegations are not cognizable on federal habeas review.

16 Although Respondent is attempting to address arguments Petitioner made in the

17 Opposition, i.e. that the Board has violated state laws by not releasing him, Respondent is

18 seeking dismissal on a basis not asserted in the initial Motion at least as to the only claim

19 Petitioner is pursuing. For this reason, the Court recommends the Court not reach this

20 argument. However, if the Court does address it, it provides an additional ground for

21 dismissal because, as discussed above (II.B.3.c)(2), Petitioner raises an issue only of state

22 law.

23 The Court RECOMMENDS that if the district judge elects to reach this issue, the

24 Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED on this basis as well.

25 III. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

26 For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED the Court

27 issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2)

28 DISMISSING the Petition.

1 IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 19, 2020, any party to his action

2 ||may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document

3 ||should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

5 Court and served on all parties by February 26, 2020.

6 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

7 || waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Turner v.

8 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th

9 || Cir. 1991).

10 || Dated: January 29, 2020 2 p / /

i on. Bernard G. Skomal

12 United States Magistrate Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28