United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW
E. SCOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.”)
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.
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).
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).
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 ...