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.

Mansour v. Ducart

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 20, 2014

RAMZI MANSOUR, Petitioner,
v.
C. E. DUCART, Respondent

Ramzi Mansour, Petitioner, Pro se, Crescent City, CA.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, United States Magistrate Judge.

On November 4, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, it appears that the one-year statute of limitations has expired.

The court, therefore, orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before December 22, 2014, why this court should not recommend dismissal of the petition with prejudice based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2010, a Los Angeles County jury convicted Petitioner of robbery and found a firearm enhancement true. (Petition at 2). On June 28, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to 17 years in prison. (Petition at 2); People v. Mansour, 2011 WL 5531021, *1 (Cal.App. Ct. Nov. 15, 2011). On November 15, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. (Petition at 2-3.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Petition at 3.)

On December 27, 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which was denied on January 10, 2013. (Id. at 3-4). On May 6, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Court of Appeal, which was denied on May 14, 2013. (Id. at 4.) On June 10, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on August 21, 2013. (Id. at 4-5.)

On October 30, 2014, Petitioner constructively filed the instant petition in this court in which he raises two grounds. (Petition at 5; Back of envelope.)

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 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997).

The AEDPA contains a one-year statute of limitations for a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(d)(1). The one-year period starts running on the latest of either the date when a conviction becomes final ...


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.