United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson, United States
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TIMELINESS
October 8, 2019, Petitioner, a California state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed an unsigned Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the
“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) According to the
unsigned Petition, Petitioner is challenging a May 2003
conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and, inter
alia, robbery. (Petition at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced
to 28 years in state prison. (Id.)
states that he did not appeal his 2003 conviction and
sentence because he did not learn until recently that his
sentence was unlawful. (Petition at 3.) However, in the last
year or two, Petitioner filed several state habeas petitions.
(See Petition at 3-4.) On September 11, 2019, the
California Supreme Court denied his last state habeas
petition as untimely. (See Petition at 4-5,
Bryant (Joe Larry) on H.C., No. S256223, Docket
(Register of Actions), available at
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov (last visited Oct.
11, 2019). Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2019, Petitioner
delivered the instant Petition to prison authorities for
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254
(“Habeas Rules”), requires the Court to dismiss a
petition without ordering a responsive pleading where
“it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief.” Here, it appears from the face of the Petition
that the action is untimely and must be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.
Court previously informed Petitioner, the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
which governs this action, establishes a one-year statute of
limitations for state prisoners to file a federal habeas
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year
limitations period is subject to a statutory tolling
provision, which suspends it for the time during which a
“properly-filed” application for post-conviction
or other collateral review is “pending” in state
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Patterson v.
Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2001).
Additionally, in certain “extraordinary
circumstances” beyond a prisoner's control,
equitable tolling may be available to toll the one-year
limitations period. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S.
631, 645, 649 (2010).
Section 2244(d)(1) limitations period is triggered and begins
to run from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the underlying judgment became final
through either the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which any impediment to the filing of a
federal petition created by unconstitutional state action is
(C) the date on which a newly recognized and retroactively
applicable constitutional right was first recognized by the
United States Supreme Court; or (D) the date on which the
factual predicate underlying a claim could have been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § ...