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.

Ranteesi v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 15, 2014

SIMON F. RANTEESI, Petitioner,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent

Simon F. Ranteesi, Petitioner, Pro se, VACAVILLE, CA.

For Gary Swarthout, Respondent: Yun Hwa Harper, LEAD ATTORNEY, Department of Justice Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, CA.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asserts that a 2008 disciplinary conviction violated his due process rights. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court is respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it is untimely, procedurally barred, and contains claims not cognizable in federal habeas. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion (ECF No. 15), and respondent has filed a reply (ECF No. 16). For the reasons set forth below, the court will recommend that respondent's motion be granted.

ANALYSIS

I. Facts

In 2006, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to a term of 26 years to life in prison. (ECF No. 14-1 at 3.)

In April 2008, following a prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of refusing to work in violation of Cal. Code of Regulations Title 15, § 3041(a). (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

He filed an administrative appeal of the conviction, which was denied at the Director's Level, the final level of administrative review, on December 12, 2008. (ECF. No. 14-1 at 22-23.)

On December 12, 2012, petitioner constructively filed a petition in the Solano County Superior Court challenging the disciplinary conviction.[1](ECF No. 14-1 at 2-16.) On February 20, 2013, the superior court denied the petition as untimely. (Id. at 50-51.) Petitioner filed a successive petition in the superior court, which was denied on April 23, 2013. (Id. at 54-56.) Petitioner also filed petitions challenging the conviction in the state appellate court and the California Supreme Court, the latter of which was denied on June 26, 2013. (ECF No. 14-2 at 78-80; see also ECF No. 15 at 3.)

On November 21, 2013, petitioner constructively filed the instant federal petition. (ECF No. 1.)

II. Statute of Limitations Under the AEDPA

Because this action was filed after April 26, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (" AEDPA") are applicable. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003). The AEDPA imposed a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal habeas petitions. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides as follows:

(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 ...

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.