Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Griffin v. Alfaro

United States District Court, Central District of California

November 6, 2014

ELLIOTT LEW GRIFFIN, Petitioner,
v.
SANDRA ALFARO, Respondent

Elliott Lew Griffin, Petitioner, Pro se, Delano, CA.

For Sandra Alfaro, Respondent: Denise A Yates, LEAD ATTORNEY, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, United States Magistrate Judge.

The court submits this Report and Recommendation to the Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order No. 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons set forth below, the magistrate judge recommends that Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied.

I.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

In 2004 Petitioner was convicted of torture, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and battery with serious bodily injury. He was sentenced to seven years to life. (Petition at 2.)[1]

On June 9, 2009, the Parole Board denied Petitioner parole and scheduled his next parole hearing for June 9, 2019. (Petition, Ex. B.)

On October 29, 2010, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court. (MTD, Ex. 1 & Proof of Service.) Petitioner's habeas petition before the California Supreme Court was denied on April 9, 2014. (Petition, Ex. C.)

On May 20, 2014, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in this court. (Petition, back of envelope.) He raises four grounds. (Id. at 5-6.)

On July 16, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (" MTD") based on expiration of the statute of limitations. On August 18, 2014, Petitioner filed an opposition. On September 3, 2014, Respondent filed a reply. On October 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a document that the court construed as a supplemental brief (" Supp. Brief") in support of his opposition to the MTD. (Dkt. No. 14.)

II.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (" AEDPA"). Therefore, the court applies the AEDPA in reviewing the petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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