Jackson v. Bonta

Background

Derrick Jackson, an inmate at Folsom State Prison proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2012 Contra Costa County conviction. The conviction involved several sex-offense and methamphetamine-related counts, and the trial court sentenced Jackson to 35 years to life in state prison.

Jackson’s federal petition repeated claims raised in a 2022 petition to the California Supreme Court. Those claims alleged that his home and cellphone were searched unlawfully and that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. The California Supreme Court denied the state habeas petition as untimely.

In an earlier screening order, this court dismissed the first two claims because federal habeas review generally does not permit reconsideration of Fourth Amendment search claims when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. The court found that the prosecutorial-misconduct claim was legally eligible for federal habeas review, but questioned whether Jackson had exhausted state remedies and whether the federal petition was timely.

Statute of limitations

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes a one-year filing deadline for state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief. The court determined that Jackson’s conviction became final on December 30, 2014, 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied review. The one-year period therefore expired on December 30, 2015. The court stated that Jackson filed the federal action on or about February 4, 2023, making it more than seven years late.

The court considered whether the deadline could be delayed or paused. It found no basis for delaying the start of the period because Jackson did not show that state action prevented timely filing, that his claim relied on a newly recognized constitutional right, or that he could not previously have discovered the facts underlying his prosecutorial-misconduct claim. The court noted that Jackson had known those facts since trial.

The court also found no statutory tolling. Statutory tolling pauses the deadline while a properly filed state post-conviction or collateral proceeding is pending, but a filing made after the federal deadline expires cannot restart that period. The record did not show that Jackson filed any qualifying state proceeding before December 30, 2015. The court therefore concluded that his state habeas petition, sentence-modification motion, and motion concerning disposition of fees could not restart the deadline.

The court rejected equitable tolling as well. Equitable tolling can excuse a late filing only when the petitioner pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court found that Jackson had not shown diligence since 2015, had not explained how the alleged constitutional errors or claimed actual innocence prevented timely filing, and had not shown that his lack of legal sophistication was an extraordinary circumstance.

Actual-innocence exception

The court also considered the exception allowing an otherwise untimely habeas claim to proceed when denying review would result in a miscarriage of justice based on actual innocence. To invoke that exception, a petitioner must provide new reliable evidence—such as scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness testimony, or critical physical evidence—not presented at trial. Jackson stated that he was actually innocent, but the court found that he provided no new reliable evidence. His argument instead challenged the prosecutor’s alleged use of false testimony.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and dismissed the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. The court denied a certificate of appealability because it concluded that reasonable judges would not debate either the validity of the constitutional claim or the correctness of the court’s procedural ruling. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the respondent and close the case.