Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nguyen v. Kramer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 5, 2009

HUNG NGUYEN, PETITIONER,
v.
M.C. KRAMER, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 5).

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." In the instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. In particular, habeas relief is not available because the petition is untimely. Federal habeas corpus petitions must be filed within one year from the later of: (1) the date the state court judgment became final; (2) the date on which an impediment to filing created by state action is removed; (3) the date on which a constitutional right is newly-recognized and made retroactive on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Typically, the statute of limitations will begin to run when the state court judgment becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or expiration of the time to seek direct review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Upon review of the instant petition, it is obvious that it is untimely. Here, petitioner does not allege any impediment to filing created by state action, a newly-recognized constitutional right, or delayed discovery of his claims. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run when the judgment became final.*fn1 Petitioner attaches to the petition an abstract of judgment from the Sacramento County Superior Court indicating that petitioner was sentenced on February 3, 2005. He admits that he did not file any direct appeals in the Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court. Thus, absent statutory tolling, the one-year limitations period expired in 2006.

Petitioner is not entitled to any statutory tolling for the time post-convictions actions were pending in state court. Petitioner states that he filed such actions in "all three state courts" and attaches various orders to his petition. Specifically, he attaches two orders from the Sacramento County Superior Court addressing separate habeas petitions, both of which were filed sometime in 2007 as revealed by the case numbers assigned to the matters. If petitioner was properly proceeding in each higher state court, any petitions filed in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were necessarily filed after the Superior Court actions. Because all of petitioner's post-convictions actions were filed sometime in 2007 -- which is after the one-year limitations period expired in 2006 -- he is not entitled to any tolling and the instant federal petition is untimely.

Based on the foregoing, petitioner is required to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be summarily dismissed as untimely and all pending motions should not be denied as moot. Petitioner is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the petition for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.