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.

Robert Michael Rubino v. Kathleen Allison

March 6, 2012

ROBERT MICHAEL RUBINO,
PETITIONER,
v.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, WARDEN, CSATF, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) filed on November 21, 2011, recommending that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 6).

I. Background

On February 22, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to 73 years to life imprisonment. On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied review of Petitioner's convictions. (ECF No. 1-2 at 28). On February 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego Superior Court. (Lodgment No. 1). On November 3, 2009, the Superior Court denied the petition. (ECF No. 1-2 at 30).

On March 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. (Lodgment No. 2). On April 19, 2010, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. (ECF No. 1-2 at 36).

On March 24, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 3). On September 14, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. (ECF No. 20 at 3).

On March 24, 2011, Petitioner initiated this action by filing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On August 17, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14). On October 17, 2011, Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18).

On November 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Petition is barred by the statute of limitations and Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. On January 10, 2012, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 24).

II. Standard of Review

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

III. Discussion

The Report and Recommendation states that pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Petitioner had until January 20, 2010, to file his Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. The Report and Recommendation states that Petitioner was entitled statutory tolling while he was properly pursuing his state remedies. The Report and Recommendation states that Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling for the 133 day delay between the California Superior Court's denial of Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus and Petitioner's filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal because the delay was unreasonable. The Report and Recommendation states that Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling for the 399 day delay between the California Court of Appeal's denial of Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus and Petitioner's filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court because the delay was unreasonable. The Report and Recommendation concludes that: "[a]dding together the two periods of time when the statute of limitations was not tolled (133 days 339 days), results in a total of one year, four months and thirteen days, which is beyond the one year statute of limitations mandated by [AEDPA]." (ECF No. 21). The Report and Recommendation also concludes that "Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations." Id. at 11. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the Motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus be granted on the grounds that the Petition is untimely.

Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation and contends that "none of the state courts found the petition to be untimely; therefore, the petition was not untimely." (ECF No. 24 at 2). Petitioner contends that the California Court of Appeal "issued a reasoned decision that clearly denied the petition on the merits and [did] not dismiss it as untimely... [which] is a clear indication that the state court felt that no procedural default should be imposed ...." Id. at 2-3 (quotation omitted). With regard to the 133 day delay, Petitioner relied on the holding in Stafford v. Carey, 312 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2002) that a delay of 4 1/2 months was not unreasonable. With regard to the 339 day delay, Petitioner contends that there was good cause for the substantial delay because he conducted an additional investigation between filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Petition contends that the California Supreme Court did not hold or cite to any cases indicating that the petition was untimely. Petition also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling on the grounds that he erroneously relied on the Stafford holding.

The Magistrate Judge correctly states that the Supreme Court held in Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006), that in the absence of a clear indication by the California Supreme Court that a petition is untimely, "the federal court must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness." Id. at 197. The Supreme Court stated that federal courts must assume that California law regarding timeliness does not differ significantly from other states which use a thirty or sixty day rule. Id. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that gaps of time as short as 81 days between state court petitions for writs of habeas corpus, without adequate explanation, are unreasonable under California law. See Velasquez v. Kirkland, 639 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that 81 and 91 day gaps were unreasonable because there was not "an adequate explanation for these lengthy delays, and [there was no] indication from the California courts that the petitions are timely...."); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding ...


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.