Statler, Jr v. Martinez
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-01925
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Charles V. Statler, Jr. v. Edward Borla, Judge Freeman dismissed the petition as untimely, granted the dismissal motion, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Charles V. Statler, Jr.; the petition was dismissed with prejudice, and no certificate of appealability was issued. The respondent was identified in the order as Edward Borla rather than Martinez.
What happened
In Charles V. Statler, Jr. v. Edward Borla, Charles V. Statler, Jr. challenged his state sentence through a federal petition. The court had found that his petition stated a legally recognized claim, but the respondent moved to dismiss it as too late and for failing to present a legally recognizable claim.
Statler’s state conviction became final after the California Supreme Court denied review on December 14, 2016. The federal filing deadline was March 14, 2018, but Statler filed his federal petition on April 18, 2023. The court found that his later state filings could not pause or restart a deadline that had already expired.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition with prejudice as untimely. The court did not address the respondent’s other dismissal ground and denied a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Statler, Jr v. Martinez · No. 5:23-cv-01925
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 25, 2024
Background
Charles V. Statler, Jr., a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request to challenge his state custody or sentence—under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged his state sentence. The court initially screened the petition and found that it stated a legally recognizable claim.
A Lake County Superior Court jury found Statler guilty of kidnapping, carjacking, unlawful taking and driving of a vehicle, and making criminal threats. The state court imposed a total sentence of 27 years and eight months, including sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions and a prior prison term. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review on December 14, 2016.
Statler later filed several state-court matters, including habeas petitions and motions involving a restitution fine and discovery. He filed the federal petition on April 18, 2023. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that the petition was untimely and did not state a cognizable claim. Statler did not file an opposition.
Statute of Limitations
The court applied the one-year limitations period for state-prisoner habeas petitions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Because Statler did not seek review from the United States Supreme Court, his state judgment became final for this purpose 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied review. The limitations period therefore began on March 14, 2017, and expired on March 14, 2018.
The court found that Statler did not file his federal petition until more than five years after that deadline. It also found that his state habeas petitions and other state filings came after the federal limitations period had expired. Those filings therefore could not pause or restart the expired deadline. The court concluded that the petition was untimely.
Ruling
The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the petition with prejudice as untimely and did not address the respondent’s alternative argument that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because Statler had not shown that reasonable judges could debate either the validity of his constitutional claim or the correctness of the court’s procedural ruling.
The opinion states that the court amended the respondent’s name from Martinez to Edward Borla, the warden identified as having custody of Statler.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.