WREN v. NDOH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-25No. No. 20-16571

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Wren's habeas petition as untimely, finding no basis for statutory or equitable tolling of the applicable limitations period.

Jeffrey Charles Wren, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence. Wren argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment and that the trial court improperly refused to strike a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence. The district court rejected these claims as filed too late under the applicable statute of limitations.

On appeal, the court examined whether Wren was entitled to have the time limit extended through statutory or equitable tolling mechanisms. The court found that Wren had not filed any state habeas petitions that would have paused the federal deadline under statutory tolling rules, nor had he shown the kind of diligence or exceptional circumstances needed for equitable tolling. Because the timeliness ruling was sound, the court upheld the district court's dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether federal habeas petition was timely filed
Applicability of statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
Whether equitable tolling was warranted
Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence validity
Trial court's discretion to strike prior strike conviction

Procedural posture

A federal district court dismissed Wren's § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely, granted a certificate of appealability on the tolling question, and Wren appealed pro se.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jeffrey Charles Wren appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 2017), we affirm.

Wrens habeas petition alleged, inter alia, that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and that the sentencing court abused its discretion by denying Wrens motion to strike a prior strike conviction. The district court dismissed these claims as untimely, and granted a certificate of appealability as to whether he is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. The record shows that Wren did not file any state habeas petitions that statutorily tolled the limitations period, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and he has not demonstrated due diligence or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling, see Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). The district courts timeliness determination was, therefore, correct.

We treat appellants additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellants requests for a ruling are denied as moot. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.