United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (DOC. 87)
LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT
Thurman (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in federal
custody, brings a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
(“Habeas Motion”) to vacate, set aside, or
correct her sentence.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
February 28, 2008, Petitioner was indicted on five counts of
violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1)-(2) (production of
material involving the sexual exploitation of minors). Doc.
1. Pursuant to a plea agreement made with the government,
Doc. 32, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the first four counts
of the indictment. Doc. 36. On March 11, 2011, Petitioner was
sentenced by Judge Oliver W. Wanger to four consecutive
360-month periods. Doc. 67. Petitioner subsequently filed an
appeal. Doc. 62. On October 19, 2012, The Ninth Circuit
entered an order affirming her sentence. Doc. 82. Its
judgment took effect November 15, 2012. Doc. 84. There is no
indication in the docket that Petitioner filed a writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
10, 2016, Petitioner signed the instant motion for habeas
relief. Doc. 87. 
April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA
imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of
habeas corpus filed after the date of its enactment.
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). The instant
petition was filed on June 10, 2016, and thus, it is subject
to the provisions of the AEDPA.
AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners
seeking to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). As amended, § 2255,
subdivision (f) reads:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the