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.

House v. California Institution For Men

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 26, 2017

GREGORY JOSEPH HOUSE, Petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN, Respondent.

          ORDER TO SHOW

          KAREN E. SCOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Order On June 15, 2017, Petitioner Gregory Joseph House (“Petitioner”) constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (“Petition”) (Dkt. 1.) As discussed more fully below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed as untimely.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are taken from the Petition, from the Court's own records, or from public records; where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the latter. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it … can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”)

         Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence entered on July 1, 2014. (Petition at 2.) He pled “no contest” and did not appeal. (Id.) He subsequently filed a habeas petition on Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BA426197. (Id. at 4.) While the Petition does not indicate when this superior court petition was filed, the Los Angeles County Superior Court's online records indicate a filing date of June 6, 2017. The California Supreme Court's online records indicate that Petitioner filed a habeas petition in that court on June 12, 2017.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         The Ninth Circuit has held that the district court has the authority to raise the statute of limitations issue sua sponte when untimeliness is obvious on the face of the Petition and to summarily dismiss a habeas petition on that ground pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, so long as the Court “provides the petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.” See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004); Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001).

         1. One-Year Statute of Limitations This action is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 (1998).[1]

         AEDPA provides as follows:

(d) (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable ...

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.