Calderon v. Bonta

Background

Juan Carlos Calderon, a state prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion states that the caption incorrectly named Attorney General Rob Bonta as the respondent; the proper respondent was Patrick Covello, the warden identified in the caption.

A Santa Clara County Superior Court jury found Calderon guilty in March 1993 of second-degree murder of his month-old son and two counts of felony child endangerment. The trial court imposed a sentence of 21 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 1994, and Calderon did not seek review in the California Supreme Court.

The opinion lists state habeas filings in the California Court of Appeal in 1997 and 2012, and additional filings in the state courts in 2021 and 2022. It states that Calderon had not filed a petition for review or a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court before filing this federal action on June 14, 2022.

Statute of limitations

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed a one-year limitations period for state prisoners’ federal habeas petitions. Because Calderon’s conviction became final before that law took effect on April 24, 1996, the court determined that he had until April 24, 1997, to file his federal petition.

The court explained that a properly filed state post-conviction petition can pause the federal limitations period only while the period is still running. It cannot restart the period after the deadline has expired. The court accepted the respondent’s position that Calderon’s first listed state habeas petition was filed on October 17, 1997—months after the April 24, 1997 deadline. The later state filings therefore did not pause or revive the federal limitations period.

Calderon did not dispute that his federal petition was late. He generally asserted that his rights had been violated and that he was unlawfully confined, and he sought relief involving transfer or deportation to Mexico. The court found no basis for statutory tolling or equitable tolling. It also stated that even if it considered Calderon’s later unauthorized filings seeking equitable tolling, those filings did not sufficiently allege a reason to extend the deadline.

Exhaustion

Federal law generally requires a state prisoner to present each federal habeas claim to the highest available state court before seeking federal relief. The respondent argued that Calderon had not exhausted any of his claims in the California Supreme Court, and Calderon did not dispute that assertion.

The court found that none of Calderon’s claims had been exhausted. Although a court would normally consider allowing a prisoner to return to state court to exhaust unexhausted claims, the court concluded that such a stay would be futile because the federal petition was already untimely.

Disposition

The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice as untimely and for failure to exhaust state remedies before filing the federal action. It denied Calderon’s other motions as moot and denied a certificate of appealability. The order terminated Docket Nos. 16, 22, and 25.