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.

Jackson v. Holland

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 6, 2015

JORDAN E. JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
KIM HOLLAND, et al., Warden, Respondents

Jordan E. Jackson, Petitioner, Pro se, Tehachapi, CA.

HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION

HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On October 21, 2014, Jordan E. Jackson (" Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the " Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is dismissed because the Court finds it untimely.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the instant Petition, [1] Petitioner asserts several claims challenging his sentence for a July 2008 conviction[2] in Riverside County Superior Court. Pet. at 1-2. On April 10, 2009, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions in a reasoned decision on direct appeal in case no. E046629. Id. at 2. Petitioner does not appear to have filed a petition for discretionary review over the appeal before the California Supreme Court.[3]

Petitioner appears to have filed two state habeas petitions after his direct appeal: (1) a petition in the California Court of Appeal on June 20, 2014 (case no. E061377), which was denied on July 9, 2014; and (2) a petition in the California Supreme Court on July 18, 2014 (case no. S220015), which was denied on September 24, 2014. Pet. at 3-4.

On October 21, 2014, Petitioner constructively filed the instant Petition. (ECF Docket No. (" dkt.") 1). On December 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order for Petitioner to Show Cause why the Petition was not untimely, notifying Petitioner the Petition was facially untimely and discussing various bases for tolling. (Dkt. 8). On December 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a " Motion to Show Cause, " which the Court construes as a Response to the OSC. (Dkt. 9). The matter thus stands submitted and ready for decision.

II.

DISCUSSION

The instant Petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (" AEDPA"). Therefore, the Court must apply the requirements for habeas relief set forth in AEDPA when reviewing the Petition. Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)). 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. § 2244(d)(1) (" Section 2244(d)(1)").

A. Petitioner Did Not File His Petition Within AEDPA's One-Year Limitations Period

AEDPA's one-year limitations period commences on the date a petitioner's conviction becomes " final." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).[4] Because Petitioner does not appear to have filed a petition for discretionary review of his appeal by the California Supreme Court, [5] Petitioner's conviction became final on May 20, 2009--forty days after the California Court of Appeal's decision disposing of Petitioner's direct appeal. See Brown v. Sisto, 303 F.App'x 458, 459 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(d)(1), the limitations period began to run the next day on May 21, 2009 and expired one year later, on May 20, 2010. The instant ...


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.