Jones v. Santoro

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY

          KAREN E. SCOTT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On December 17, 2019 (per proof of service), Shawn Jones (“Petitioner”) constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “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 was convicted in 2014 of armed robbery and related crimes. (Dkt. 1 at 2.^[1]) The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. People v. Jones, No. B258757, 2016 WL 816486, 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1493 (Mar. 2, 2016). He next filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court which was denied on May 11, 2016. See People v. Jones, No. S233664, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 3396 (May 11, 2016). He did not file a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Dkt. 1 at 5.)

         Petitioner filed a state habeas petition with the Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 17, 2017. (Id. at 3.) He has no additional state habeas petitions pending. (Id. at 10.)

         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.” Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004).

         1. One-Year Statute of Limitations.

         This action is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty ...