Barnes v. Campbell , 373 F. App'x 676 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 01 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FLOYD EUGENE BARNES,                            No. 07-56665
    Petitioner - Appellant,          D.C. No. CV-06-01849-BTM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    R. CAMPBELL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 16, 2010 **
    Before:         SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Floyd Eugene Barnes appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We
    have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    SM S/Research
    The district court did not err when it dismissed Barnes’ habeas petition as
    untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Barnes’ state habeas petition filed in the
    San Diego Superior Court did not toll AEDPA’s limitations period because it was
    not properly filed. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 
    544 U.S. 408
    , 417 (2005) (“Because
    the state court rejected petitioner’s [postconviction] petition as untimely, it was not
    ‘properly filed,’ and he is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).”);
    Bonner v. Carey, 
    425 F.3d 1145
    , 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Pace to
    California’s timeliness rule for postconviction petitions), as amended, 
    439 F.3d 993
    (9th Cir. 2006). Barnes’ contention that application of Pace to this case
    violates the constitution’s Ex Post Facto clause is without merit. See Allen v.
    Siebert, 
    552 U.S. 3
    (2007) (per curiam) (applying Pace to a habeas petition filed
    before Pace was decided).
    Barnes contends the district court erred because it failed to determine
    whether California’s timeliness rule is “adequate.” A state’s timeliness rule is a
    “condition to filing” and not a “procedural bar.” 
    Pace, 544 U.S. at 417
    . Therefore,
    “whether a condition to filing is firmly established and regularly followed is
    irrelevant.” See Zepeda v. Walker, 
    581 F.3d 1013
    , 1018 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    SMS/Research                                2                                     07-56665
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-56665

Citation Numbers: 373 F. App'x 676

Judges: Schroeder, Pregerson, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 4/1/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024