Submitted February 5, 2019 [*] Pasadena, California
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, No. 5:16-cv-00567-VAP-DTB Virginia A.
Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Stephanie M. Adraktas, Berkeley, California, for
Becerra, Attorney General of California; Julie L. Garland,
Senior Assistant Attorney General; Robin Urbanski,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy
Attorney General; Vincent P. LaPietra, Deputy Attorney
General; Office of the California Attorney General, San
Diego, California; for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Ronald M. Gould, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B.
Owens, Circuit Judges.
panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of
California state prisoner Martin Leyva Valdez, Jr.'s
federal habeas petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act.
parties agreed that the petition was untimely unless the
statute of limitations was tolled from May 15, 2014- when the
California Superior Court denied Valdez's first state
habeas petition-until April 29, 2015-when Valdez filed his
second state habeas petition in the California Court of
the question of whether Valdez's second state habeas
petition was timely filed in the Court of Appeal is an
entirely distinct issue from whether his habeas petition in
the Superior Court was timely filed, the panel held that the
"look through" doctrine cannot answer whether the
second state habeas petition was timely.
panel held that Valdez is not entitled to statutory tolling.
Because Valdez filed his second state habeas petition before
the California Supreme Court decided People v.
Elizalde, 351 P.3d 1010 (Cal. 2015), the panel rejected
his contention that he can establish good cause for the delay
by waiting until Elizalde was decided. The panel
likewise rejected Valdez's contention that the size of
the state-court record and complexity of the case renders his
delay reasonable and establishes good cause, where Valdez
offered no explanation for why he could timely file his first
petition but not his second.
panel concluded that the district court did not err by not
ordering the State to respond and lodge the state-court
again consider whether a California-state prisoner is
entitled to statutory tolling under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA").
Because we hold that Petitioner-Appellant Martin Valdez is
not, we affirm the district court's dismissal of
Valdez's federal habeas petition as untimely.
the course of two jury trials, Valdez was convicted of
murder, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and
robbery. People v. Valdez, No. E053309, 2013 WL
1770856, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App., Apr. 25, 2013) (unpublished).
The trial court sentenced Valdez to life without the
possibility of parole, plus seventy years to life, plus nine
years. Id. Valdez appealed his conviction to the
California Court of Appeal, which affirmed. Id. at
*2. The California Supreme Court then denied Valdez's
petition for review on July 31, 2013.
filed his first state habeas petition in California Superior
Court on April 10, 2014. The court denied that petition on
May 15, 2014. Almost one year later, in April 2015, Valdez
filed his second state petition in the California Court of
Appeal, asserting the same claims. The court denied that
petition without explanation. Valdez then filed his third
state petition in the California Supreme ...