Woodhouse v. Anglea

Background

Keith E. Woodhouse, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of 30 counts involving lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 and was sentenced to 30 years to life in state prison.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on May 26, 2016, and the California Supreme Court denied review on August 10, 2016. Woodhouse then pursued state post-conviction petitions. He also filed an earlier federal petition on March 19, 2018. The court dismissed that petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust judicial remedies, meaning he had not first presented the claim through the required state-court process. Woodhouse filed the present federal petition on July 25, 2019.

Respondent Patrick Eaton moved to dismiss the present petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations. Respondent alternatively argued that the petition’s sole claim was procedurally defaulted.

Statute of limitations

The court held that Woodhouse’s judgment became final 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied review, on November 8, 2016. The one-year federal filing period therefore began then, subject to statutory tolling for properly filed state post-conviction proceedings.

The court calculated that 249 days elapsed before Woodhouse filed his first state habeas petition on July 17, 2017, leaving 116 days. The court found that statutory tolling applied while Woodhouse pursued that first sequence of state petitions through January 17, 2018. The limitations period then resumed, and the court determined that the deadline was May 14, 2018.

Woodhouse’s first federal petition was filed before that deadline, but the court held that a federal habeas petition does not toll the federal limitations period. Because the first federal petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust, it did not preserve the deadline for the later petition. The court also held that Woodhouse’s later state petitions could not restart or revive a limitations period that had already expired.

Equitable tolling

The court considered whether equitable tolling could extend the deadline. Equitable tolling is an exceptional extension available when extraordinary circumstances beyond a petitioner’s control make timely filing impossible. The court found that Woodhouse had not alleged facts supporting equitable tolling and concluded that his delay in pursuing state remedies, rather than circumstances beyond his control, caused the late filing.

Disposition

The court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The court dismissed the action with prejudice. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Woodhouse had not shown that reasonable judges could debate the court’s procedural ruling. The order states that Woodhouse may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge

The order was signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.