(HC) Viera v. Peery ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 DANIEL HECTOR VIERA, No. 2:19-cv-1573 WBS DMC 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER 15 SUZANNE M. PEERY 16 Respondent. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings 20 this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate 22 judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 23 On July 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings 24 and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 25 which contained notice that the parties may file objections 26 within the time specified therein. (See Magistrate’s Findings 27 and Recommendations (“Magistrate’s F&R”) (Docket No. 17).) 28 Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been 1 filed. 2 Specifically, petitioner objects to the magistrate 3 judge’s finding that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was 4 procedurally defective because it was not timely filed under the 5 applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 6 (See Pet’r’s Objs. at 4-6 (Docket No. 18).) Petitioner argues 7 that his petition was timely filed because (1) neither he nor any 8 other defendant in his position could reasonably have known that 9 he was ineligible for half-time credits, and (2) the magistrate 10 judge erred in determining that May 16, 2018 was the latest 11 possible date upon which the limitations period could expire. 12 (See id.) 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this court has conducted a de 15 novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire 16 file, the court finds the magistrate’s findings and 17 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 18 analysis. 19 First, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s 20 determination that petitioner should reasonably have known he was 21 not entitled to half-time credits by May 16, 2017. (See 22 Magistrate’s F&R at 6.) The Ninth Circuit has consistently held 23 that the limitations period “begins when the prisoner knows (or 24 through diligence could discover) the important facts, not when 25 the prisoner recognizes their legal significance.” Hasan v. 26 Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012). 27 Here, the evidence here shows that petitioner’s 2010 28 plea agreement included an enhancement that made him ineligible 1 for half-time credits, and that petitioner was repeatedly asked 2 during his 2013 sentencing in state court if he understood the 3 terms of forms he had signed waiving his entitlement to half-time 4 credits. (See Magistrate’s F&R at 6.) Petitioner therefore 5 could have discovered, through reasonable diligence, that he was 6 not eligible for half-time credits, even if he did not understand 7 the legal significance of each term in his sentence when he 8 received it. See Hasan, 254 F.3d at 1154 n.3. 9 Moreover, petitioner appeared to admit in the 10 declaration he attached to his state habeas petition that he had 11 actual knowledge of his ineligibility for half-time credits 12 during or immediately after his March 16, 2017 sentencing. (Id.) 13 The court therefore agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding 14 that a reasonable defendant in petitioner’s position could have 15 discovered his ineligibility for half-time credits before his 16 sentencing became final on May 16, 2017. 17 Second, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s 18 finding that May 16, 2018, was the last date for petitioner to 19 file a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 20 (See Magistrate’s F&R at 7.) 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) requires 21 a petitioner to file a writ of habeas corpus within one year of 22 his sentence becoming final or within one year of the date on 23 which the factual predicate of his claim could have been 24 discovered by exercising due diligence, whichever is later. 25 Here, there was ample evidence showing that petitioner could have 26 discovered the factual predicate of his claim prior to or, at the 27 latest, immediately after his sentencing on March 16, 2017. (See 28 Magistrate’s F&R at 6-7.) The magistrate judge therefore wASS Ct UV VEY POV DOMINO OI ee AY ST Ut 1 correctly found that the latest date upon which the limitations 2 period could have expired was when petitioner’s sentencing became 3 final, on May 16, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (1) (A). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 23, 2020, 6 are adopted in full; 7 2, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is granted; 8 and 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment 10 and close this file. 11 | Dated: September 25, 2020 □□ tteom. Ad. bt—~ 12 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28