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.

Sanchez v. Santoro

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 5, 2017

Luis C. Sanchez
v.
K. Santoro

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed As Untimely

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Luis C. Sanchez (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the Petition appears to be untimely on its face. The Court thus orders Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

         On August 31, 2010, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted of mayhem with a gang enhancement in violation of sections 203 and 186.22(b)(1)(C) of the California Penal Code. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Pet. at 2. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of fourteen years. Id. Plaintiff did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Id. at 2-3.

         Following the conviction, Petitioner filed three state habeas petitions. Id. at 4. The first state habeas petition was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and denied on August 19, 2016. Id.

         On September 26, 2016, Petitioner filed the second state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal. Pet. at 4. On October 11, 2016, the California Court of Appeal denied the petition. See California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket (Feb. 1, 2017, 4:24 PM) http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&docid=2155946&doc no=B277887.

         On November 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a third state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. See California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket (Feb. 1, 2017, 4:24 PM) http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&docid=2169246&doc no=S238254. On December 21, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. Pet. at 5.

         On January 11, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed[1] the instant Petition alleging his sentence is “subject to the requirements of the Determinate Sentence Act, under which enhancements for determinant terms are imposed at one-third of the enhancement term.” Id. at 6[2].

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. THE PETITION WAS FILED AFTER AEDPA'S ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD

         Petitioner filed the Petition after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Pet. at 9. Therefore, the requirements for habeas relief set forth in AEDPA apply. Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2014). AEDPA “sets a one-year limitations period in which a state prisoner must file a federal habeas corpus petition.” Thompson v. Lea, 681 F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Ordinarily, the limitations period runs from the date on which the prisoner's judgment of conviction “became 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.