Beggs v. Mason

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03002
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 29, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 FORREST ARTHUR BEGGS, 10 1:24-cv-03002-SAB Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 13 DEAN MASON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 By Order filed February 16, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner Forrest 18 Arthur Beggs to show cause why his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by 19 a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be dismissed as 20 time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). ECF No. 4. Petitioner is a prisoner 21 currently housed at the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton, Washington. 22 The filing fee has been paid. Respondent has not been served. 23 On March 14, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner additional time to show 24 cause, extending his deadline until April 19, 2024. ECF No. 6. Petitioner did not 25 file a Response to the Order to Show Cause by this extended deadline, but on April 26 22, 2024, the Court received via the U.S. Postal Service Petitioner’s “Notice In Re: 27 DOC law library Motion for Extension of Time,” which the Court construes as 28 Petitioner’s Second Motion for Extension of Time. ECF No. 7. 1 On that same date, the Court received Petitioner’s Response to the Order to 2 Show Cause, and another electronically filed “Notice In Re: DOC law library 3 Motion for Extension of Time.” ECF Nos. 9 and 10. Based on Petitioner’s 4 explanation of his efforts to submit his Response electronically, see ECF No. 7 at 5 1–2, the Court considers the Response to be timely filed. Therefore, Petitioner’s 6 construed Motions for Extension of Time, ECF Nos. 7 and 10, are DENIED as 7 moot. Petitioner is still reminded of the requirement that he submit his documents 8 electronically. 9 In the Order to Show Cause, the Court specifically noted that Petitioner 10 failed to provide relevant information regarding any Personal Restraint Petition 11 (“PRP”) he may have filed in state court. ECF No. 4 at 2–3. After review of 12 Petitioner’s submissions, including his 20-page Response and his 75 pages of 13 exhibits, ECF No. 9, the Court finds that Petitioner has still failed to provide any 14 information regarding state court PRPs that might have statutorily tolled the federal 15 limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Consequently, Petitioner has 16 failed to demonstrate that his federal habeas corpus petition was timely filed on 17 January 11, 2024. 18 Petitioner states that his judgment and sentence for unspecified offenses was 19 entered on October 28, 2021, and he received an exceptional sentence of 300 20 months. ECF No. 9 at 2. Petitioner states that he filed a pro se Notice of Appeal on 21 October 27, 2022, that was dismissed as untimely on April 12, 2023, with a 22 mandate issuing on May 18, 2023. Id. Although Petitioner does not state that he 23 filed a PRP or when he did so, he indicates that the Court of Appeals dismissed a 24 PRP on May 1, 2023. Id. at 3. He states that his attorney filed a Motion for 25 Discretionary Review to the Washington State Supreme Court on May 30, 2023, 26 and a Motion to Modify Ruling Denying Review on July 6, 2023. Id. Petitioner 27 does not state the disposition of the Motion to Modify, but the attached Certificate 28 of Finality for Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, case No. 39314-3- 1 III, indicates the Order Dismissing Personal Restraint Petition, filed on May 1, 2 2023, became final on September 6, 2023. ECF No. 9-1 at 50. 3 Again, Petitioner provides no information from which the Court could infer 4 that this PRP was filed at any time prior to November 29, 2022, so that it might 5 statutorily toll the federal limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A 6 review of state court records1, however, indicates that Mr. Beggs’ PRP, case No. 7 39314-3-III was filed on October 28, 2022. 8 This Court assumes the federal limitations period commenced on November 9 29, 2021, based on Petitioner’s failure to appeal his judgment and sentence, and his 10 failure to present a statutory basis to delay the running of the limitations period. 11 See ECF No. 4 at 3; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Consequently, by October 28, 2022, 12 332 days of the federal limitations period had expired, leaving Petitioner only 33 13 days to file a federal habeas corpus petition after his state court collateral 14 proceedings concluded. Even if the Court were to consider September 6, 2023, as 15 the conclusion of those proceedings, the federal limitations period would have 16 expired on or about October 9, 2023. Therefore, the petition filed on January 11, 17 2024, ECF No. 1, is untimely by more than three months. Petitioner’s additional 18 arguments, ECF No. 9 at 2–19, are not relevant in light of his failure to 19 demonstrate that his federal habeas corpus petition was timely filed. 20 In an apparent attempt to invoke equitable tolling, Petitioner asserts that his 21 trial counsel was responsible to file an appropriate notice of appeal. ECF No. 9 at 22 6. Petitioner appears to claim that he diligently pursued his rights by hiring a 23 private investigator and expressing that he intended to file a notice of appeal and 24 he hired a lawyer to represent him. Id. at 7. Yet, Petitioner still fails to state what 25 prevented him from filing his notice of appeal by November 27, 2021, or his 26

27 1 Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) 28 (noting it is appropriate to take judicial notice of materials from another tribunal). 1 federal habeas corpus petition by October 9, 2023. Petitioner seems to indicate that 2 he filed complaints against his attorney with the Washington State Bar in 3 December 2023 and January 2024. Id. at 8. Nevertheless, this does not excuse his 4 failure to timely file his federal habeas corpus petition. 5 “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has 6 been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance 7 stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 8 649 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner must show that some 9 “external force” caused his untimeliness, rather than mere “oversight, 10 miscalculation or negligence.” WaldronBRamsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1011 11 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, Petitioner must 12 have been delayed by circumstances “beyond[his] direct control,” and not by his or 13 his counsel’s “own mistake.” Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 14 2008). Here, Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel should be faulted for not filing 15 a timely notice of appeal. Nevertheless, this does not constitute an extraordinary 16 circumstance that prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas corpus 17 petition. Id. at 1055. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED 3|| with prejudice as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 2. Petitioner’s construed Motions for Extension of Time, ECF Nos. 7 5||and 10, are DENIED as moot. 3. The Court certifies there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and CLOSE this file. 10 DATED this 29th day of April 2024. 11 12 13 hyd ee tean 15 Sfreuleyld Sec tran 16 Stanley A. Bastian 7 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28