Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Noll

September 20, 2010

STEVEN GREGORY WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
COLLEEN NOLL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This matter is before the Court on Respondent Colleen Noll's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 11.) Respondent contends that the petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending the Court grant Respondent's motion. Petitioner filed objections.

Upon de novo review, the Court concludes Petitioner did not file his petition within the statute of limitations and is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in full and grants Respondent's motion.

BACKGROUND

The R&R contains a complete and accurate summary of the proceedings in this case, and the Court fully adopts the Magistrate Judge's detailed background. (See R&R at 2-6.) In sum, on August 22, 1984, Petitioner Williams pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and one count of grand theft,*fn1 and was to receive a sentence of five years in state prison. (R&R at 2.) More than ten years later, on February 27, 1995, Petitioner was convicted for robbery, with an enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury.*fn2 (Id.) From 1996 to 1999, Petitioner filed a series of unsuccessful petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state court. (See id. at 3-4.) At the same time, petitioner sought direct review of his conviction, culminating on July 28,1999 when the California Supreme Court denied review of the case. (See id. at 4.) Nearly three years later, on May 15, 2002, Petitioner renewed his efforts to obtain state habeas relief. This round of state post conviction review ended on April 16, 2003, when the California Supreme Court denied his petition as untimely.

In 2006, Petitioner first requested copies of the state court record with regard to his 1984 conviction. After receiving the record on March 12, 2007, Petitioner thereafter filed another round of state habeas corpus petitions beginning on March 24, 2008. This round of state habeas petitions ended on July 22, 2009, when the California Supreme Court denied a second habeas corpus petition.

Petitioner filed the current petition on August 5, 2009. On December 18, 2009, Respondent Noll filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Def.'s Mot."), contending that Petitioner had not filed his petition within the statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 11.) Petitioner opposed the motion. (Doc. No. 19.) On May 14, 2010, Magistrate Judge Brooks filed a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 24.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 27.) Respondent did not file a reply.

DISCUSSION

The R&R sets forth the correct legal standard the Court must apply in considering whether the current petition is time-barred. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244, (d)(1) 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 court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(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;

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

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.