Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02023/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02023-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE KENNARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2023 FCD GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KENNARD, Warden, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner proceeds on an original petition, challenging his conviction in a prison

disciplinary action for possession of methamphetamine in his cell. Petitioner is currently housed

at California State Prison - Sacramento (CSP-Sac), and although the disciplinary action he

challenges took place at CSP-Lancaster, and the petition was filed in September, 2005 in the

Central District, it was thereafter transferred and filed in this court on October 6, 2005. See

Docket Entry # 1.

Petitioner contends that the controlled substance discovered in his cell belonged to

his cellmate, but that he was nevertheless adjudged guilty of possession, in violation of due

process, and assessed a loss of 150 days of good time/work time credit. Petition, p. 12.

Specifically, petitioner alleges that he was denied the right to present his only defense to the

KERNAN

Case 2:05-cv-02023-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

charge, was not permitted to call defense witnesses or to confront the accusing officer and was

“reduced to simply denying the allegation.” Id.

In the answer, filed on Feb. 23, 2006, and thereafter supplemented on Feb. 28,

2006, respondent concedes that petitioner exhausted his state court remedies, but asserts as an

affirmative defense that the petition was untimely as not filed within the AEDPA time limits,

citing Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9 Cir. 2004) and Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, th

126 S. Ct. 846 (2006). Answer, pp. 2, 4. The court’s review of the relevant documents indicates

that the instant petition may be untimely filed. Petitioner did not file a reply/traverse. The court

will now direct petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely

and to show, e.g., whether and why he might be entitled to equitable tolling.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner must show cause, within 20 days, why the instant petition should not

be dismissed as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); and

2. Failure to respond timely will result in a recommendation that this petition be

dismissed.

DATED: 04/17/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

kenn2023.osc

Case 2:05-cv-02023-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 2