United States District Court, C.D. California
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.
a state inmate, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. For the reasons discussed below, it appears that
the one-year statute of limitations has expired for the first
three claims in the four-claim petition. It further appears
that the fourth claim is subject to summary dismissal.
court therefore orders Petitioner to show cause on or before
September 29, 2017 why the court
should not recommend dismissal of the petition with
2008, after a bench trial, a Ventura County court found
Petitioner guilty of forcible rape and rape with a foreign
object, and found true various allegations. He was sentenced
to 25 years to life plus six years in state prison. (Petition
at 2; see People v. Clark, 2008 WL
5395730, *1 (2008).)
December 3, 2008, the California Court of Appeal affirmed.
(Id.) Petitioner indicates that he filed a Petition
for Review with the California Supreme Court and requests
judicial notice. (Petition at 3.) The court takes judicial
notice of online records in the state's Appellate Courts
Case Information database, available at
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. However, the
online docket indicates that no petition for review was
seven years, on January 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a habeas
petition in the trial court, which denied relief. (Petition
at 3-4.) On February 14, 2017, he filed a habeas petition
before the California Court of Appeal in Case No. B280701. On
February 28, 2017, the court denied the petition and directed
the Superior Court to amend Petitioner's indeterminate
abstract of judgment “to reflect that ‘Defendant
was sentenced pursuant to' Penal Code section
667.61.” (Petition at 4; see Docket,
In re Clark, Case No. B280701, available at
April 3, 2017, Petitioner presented the same habeas claims to
California Supreme Court, which summarily denied relief on
May 24, 2017. (Petition at 4-5; see Docket, In
re Clark, Case No. S241011, available at
August 2, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed the current
petition. (See Petition, back of envelope.)
OF LIMITATIONS: GROUNDS ONE THROUGH THREE
petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
Therefore, the court applies the AEDPA in reviewing the
petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (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). The one-year period starts
running on the latest of either the date when a conviction
becomes final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) or on a
date set in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). The Court must analyze