Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00471/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00471-1/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

 On September 1, 2006, petitioner filed a “reply” to respondents’ reply brief. With

respect to motions, the local rules of this court permit the filing of an opposition and then a reply. 

Local Rule 78-230(m). Petitioner did not seek leave to file his “reply.” Therefore, it will not be

considered. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL MILTON, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-0471 DFL KJM P 

vs.

JAMES YATES, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss in which

respondents argue that petitioner’s habeas application is time-barred; petitioner has filed an

opposition, and respondents a reply.1

 Initially, the court notes that counsel for respondents has

requested that James Yates, the warden at petitioner’s place of incarceration be substituted as a

respondent for “Janne” Woodford. Mot., n.1. Good cause appearing, the request will be

granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1); Brittingham v. U.S., 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00471-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides as follows:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a

writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the

latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Respondents argue that the limitations period began to run on July 9, 1997 under 

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). Respondents assert that, as of that date, petitioner was no longer able to file a

petition for review in the California Supreme Court.

The court notes that the California Court of Appeal vacated petitioner’s sentence

on May 29, 1997 and remanded petitioner’s case to the Superior Court of Sacramento County. 

Resp’ts’ Lodged Document No. 2 at 18. From the record before the court, it is unclear what

exactly happened on remand and when direct review of petitioner’s conviction and sentence

concluded. 

In light of the foregoing, the court will deny respondents’ motion to dismiss

without prejudice to refiling within thirty days. In the renewed motion to dismiss, respondents

must show when direct review concluded with respect to petitioner’s conviction and sentence at

issue in this action.

Case 2:06-cv-00471-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. James Yates is hereby substituted for Janne Woodford as a respondent in this

action; and

2. Respondents’ July 21, 2006 motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to

refiling within thirty days of this order. 

DATED: November 15, 2006. 

1

milt0471.157

Case 2:06-cv-00471-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3