Gomez v. Andes

Background

John B. Gomez, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. The opinion states that a Contra Costa County jury convicted him in 2018 and that he received a sentence of 80 years and 8 months to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on December 1, 2021, and the California Supreme Court denied review on February 9, 2022.

Gomez later filed state post-conviction petitions. The state superior court received one on March 15, 2023; the California Court of Appeal denied a later petition on July 20, 2023; and the California Supreme Court denied his petition on March 12, 2024. The federal docket shows the petition was filed on May 20, 2024. The opinion also states that Gomez signed the petition on April 24, 2025, which appears inconsistent with the other dates in the opinion.

Andes moved to dismiss the federal petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which generally gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal petition. Gomez opposed the motion and requested appointment of counsel to help him respond.

Timeliness analysis

The court calculated that Gomez’s conviction became final on May 10, 2022, after the period for seeking review in the United States Supreme Court expired. Without tolling, the federal petition would have been due on May 10, 2023.

The court applied statutory tolling for the period during which Gomez’s state post-conviction petitions were pending. Because Andes conceded that Gomez did not unreasonably delay between those filings, the court held that the limitations period was paused from March 15, 2023, through March 12, 2024. The court calculated that Gomez had 56 days remaining after the state supreme court denied his petition, which ordinarily would have produced a May 7, 2024 deadline.

The court declined to apply the prisoner mailbox rule because Gomez sent the petition to his son for mailing rather than giving it to prison officials for delivery to the court. The court therefore used May 20, 2024, as the filing date.

The court then applied equitable tolling, a judge-created extension of a filing deadline available in limited circumstances. It found that Gomez acted diligently to obtain notice of the state supreme court’s denial and that he did not receive notice until March 25, 2024. The court held that the 13-day period from March 12 through March 25 was an extraordinary circumstance beyond Gomez’s control that made timely filing impossible. After adding that period, the court found that Gomez had until May 20, 2024, and filed on that date.

Rulings and next steps

The court DENIED Andes’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. It DENIED AS MOOT Gomez’s motion for appointment of counsel because the court had already resolved the dismissal motion without needing appointed counsel.

The court ordered Andes to file and serve an answer showing why the petition should not be granted within 60 days of the order. Gomez may file a reply within 45 days after receiving the answer. The court also set requirements concerning service, address changes, extensions, and prosecution of the case. The order states that failure to comply with deadlines or court orders may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminated Docket No. 8.