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.

Clark v. Hatton

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 29, 2017

WILLIE CLARK, Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN HATTON, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER

          ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, 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.

         The court therefore orders Petitioner to show cause on or before September 29, 2017 why the court should not recommend dismissal of the petition with prejudice.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In 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;[1] see People v. Clark, 2008 WL 5395730, *1 (2008).)

         On 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 filed.

         After 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.”[2] (Petition at 4; see Docket, In re Clark, Case No. B280701, available at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.)

         On 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 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.)

         On August 2, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed the current petition. (See Petition, back of envelope.)

         II.

         STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: GROUNDS ONE THROUGH THREE

         The 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).

         The 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 ...


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.