Daniel E. Preciado v. M. Gamboa

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Daniel E. Preciado’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice as untimely under the AEDPA statute of limitations. The court also determined that the claims appeared to be wholly unexhausted in state court. The order was without prejudice to Petitioner’s state-court resentencing petition under California Penal Code § 1172.1.

Holdings

1. The petition was untimely because the state-court judgment became final on April 18, 2016, the one-year limitations period expired on April 18, 2017, and Petitioner did not constructively file the federal petition until July 3, 2024.
2. Delayed accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) did not apply because the record contained no basis for finding that the factual predicates of Petitioner's claims could have been discovered after the conviction and sentence became final.
3. Petitioner was not entitled to statutory tolling because he did not identify any properly filed state post-conviction or collateral-review application pending during the federal limitations period.
4. Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because the record did not establish that he pursued his rights diligently or that an extraordinary circumstance caused the untimely filing.
5. The petition appeared to be wholly unexhausted because Petitioner had not presented the same grounds for relief to the California Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal habeas petition was barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether delayed accrual, statutory tolling, or equitable tolling rendered the petition timely.
3. Whether the petition was wholly unexhausted because Petitioner had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court.

Disposition

dismissed