Mallette v. Warner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01844
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 XAVIER GABRIEL MALLETTE, CASE NO. C23-1844-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 JACK WARNER, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Xavier Mallette’s objections (Dkt. No. 16 17) to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United 17 States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 16) and his motions for an evidentiary hearing and for a 18 certificate of appealability (Dkt. Nos. 14, 18). For the reasons described below, the Court 19 OVERRULES the objections (Dkt. No. 17), denies the motions (Dkt. Nos. 14, 18), ADOPTS the 20 R&R (Dkt. No. 16), and DISMISSES with prejudice Mr. Mallette’s petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus (Dkt. No. 4). 22 Mr. Mallette filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition with this Court seeking habeas relief. (See 23 generally Dkt. No. 4.) In the resulting R&R, Judge Peterson found the petition time barred due to 24 Mr. Mallette’s failure to file within the one-year statute of limitations period. (See Dkt. No. 16 at 25 4.) Moreover, finding that reasonable jurists could not disagree, Judge Peterson also 26 recommended against issuing a certificate of appealability. (Id. at 8–9.) In objecting to these 1 recommendations, Mr. Mallette merely lists his objections without argument. (See generally Dkt. 2 No. 17.) 3 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 4 R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 8, Federal Rules Governing 5 § 2254 Cases (2019). In fact, “[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 6 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 7 See also Cavanaugh v. Kincheloe, 877 F.2d 1443, 1449 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the Rule 8 72(b) requirement of specifically written objections does not apply to habeas corpus petitions filed 9 under 28 § U.S.C. 2254). 10 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act established a one-year limitation period 11 for state prisoners to file applications for federal habeas relief, which typically commences from 12 “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration 13 of the time for seeking such review”—whichever occurs later. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Here, Mr. 14 Mallette did not file a direct appeal of his state convictions, meaning his conviction became final 15 on November 15, 2021—the expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal. See Gonzalez v. 16 Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 149–50 (2012). The statute of limitations began running the following day 17 and expired one year later on November 16, 2022. See Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th 18 Cir. 2002). Because Mr. Mallette filed his federal habeas petition on November 29, 2023, over one 19 year after his statute of limitations expired, (see Dkt. No. 1), the Court finds that Mr. Mallette has 20 filed his petition outside the statute of limitations and overrules it on that basis. And given that this 21 petition is time-barred, there is no justification for holding an evidentiary hearing. See Schriro v. 22 Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). 23 The statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions can be extended through equitable 24 tolling, but the threshold for its application is high: it requires a petitioner to demonstrate both 25 diligence and extraordinary circumstances preventing timely filing. See Miranda v. Castro, 292 26 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002); Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). In this case, Mr. 1 Mallette’sclaim for equitable tolling based on hardships faced lacks specificity and supporting 2 evidence, failing to show that these circumstances caused the untimeliness of the petition. 3 Additionally, Mr. Mallette’sassertion of actual innocence does not meet the demanding standard 4 set by the Supreme Court, lacking new reliable evidence that would likely change the outcome of 5 his criminal proceedings. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013). 6 Separately, Mr. Mallette seeks a certificate of appealability for his petition (Dkt. No. 18). 7 A petitioner may appeal dismissal of his federal habeas petition only after obtaining a certificate 8 of appealability from a district or circuit judge, which may issue only upon a “substantial showing 9 of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A petitioner satisfies this standard 10 “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 11 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude issues presented are adequate to deserve 12 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Judge 13 Peterson found that no reasonable jurist could find the issues presented in Mr. Mallette’s habeas 14 petition deserve encouragement to proceed further. (See generally Dkt. No. 16.) Mr. Mallette 15 presents this Court with no reason to depart from that conclusion. (See Dkt. No. 18.) 16 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Mallette’s objections to Judge Peterson’s R&R (Dkt. No. 17 17) are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16), DISMISSES with prejudice 18 Mr. Mallette’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 4) and DENIES his motion for an 19 evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 14) and for a certificate of appealability (Dkt. No. 18). 20 DATED this 9th day of April 2024. A 21 22 23 John C. Coughenour 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26