Hung Duong Nguon v. James S. Hill

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California revised its order accepting the Report and Recommendation to grant the respondent's motion to dismiss Hung Duong Nguon's amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that the petition was untimely, rejected arguments concerning equitable tolling, Miller v. Alabama, a subsequent resentencing denial, and newly discovered evidence, and ratified the prior judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not show that he had been pursuing his rights diligently or that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
2. The denial of resentencing relief does not constitute a new judgment that restarts the federal habeas limitations period for challenging the original conviction when the proceeding does not result in a new judgment.
3. Even assuming that Miller v. Alabama could defer the limitations starting date, the petition would still be untimely by ten years.
4. Section 2244(d)(1)(D) did not delay accrual because Petitioner's argument was factually unfounded: the record showed that he received life with the possibility of parole plus three years, not life without parole or death.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner's objections established a basis for equitable tolling of the federal habeas limitations period.
2. Whether Petitioner's belief that he would be released in 2005 excused the delay in filing his 2024 petition.
3. Whether Miller v. Alabama provided a delayed limitations starting date that made the petition timely.
4. Whether the denial of resentencing relief constituted a new judgment restarting the limitations period for challenging the original 1997 conviction.
5. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) delayed accrual based on allegedly new evidence concerning Petitioner's dangerousness.

Disposition

dismissed