United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY
E. SCOTT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.”).
was convicted in 2014 of armed robbery and related crimes.
(Dkt. 1 at 2.) 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.)
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.)
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).
One-Year Statute of Limitations.
action is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death