Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00164-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTE OF 

LIMITATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

ECF No. 7

Petitioner Curley John Broussard, Jr., a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for review 

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to 

the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition 

unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 

918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Petitioner also filed a motion to stay, which is denied. ECF No. 7.

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

2

Statute of Limitations

This court may raise the statute of limitations sua sponte when reviewing a habeas 

petition. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006); Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 

1042 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001) (Federal district courts may consider the timeliness of a state prisoner’s 

habeas petition to serve the interests of judicial efficiency.).

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), petitioners seeking 

habeas relief under § 2254 must comply with the statute of limitations set by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The one-year period begins on the latest of four dates:

(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. 

Id.; see also Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The statute of limitations period can be tolled in various ways. For example, a petitioner 

can obtain equitable tolling if he shows: “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and 

(2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Williams 

v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546, 558 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 

(2010)).

Here, petitioner asserts three grounds for relief: (1) judicial misconduct during his 1983 

trial, (2) miscarriage of justice during his 1983 trial, and (3) a violation of his rights caused by a 

“code of silence” enforced by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1984. See ECF No. 1 at 

4-15. Petitioner sought state-level habeas review of his 1983 conviction multiple times. The 

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

3

most recent of petitioner’s state habeas petitions was denied on October 1, 2008 by the California 

Supreme Court. See Broussard on H.C., No. S165761 (Cal. Oct. 1, 2008).

1

To comply with § 2244(d), petitioner must have either filed his petition within one year of 

the California Supreme Court’s denial of review or show he is entitled to tolling under one of the 

narrow exceptions of § 2244(d)(1)(B-D). Here, petitioner filed his federal petition on February 6, 

2019—over 10 years after the California Supreme Court’s “judgment became final by the 

conclusion of direct review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).2 Because the record indicates that the 

petition may “fall outside the one-year time period, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating 

that he is entitled to tolling.” Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on 

other grounds by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Therefore, petitioner must explain 

to this court how his petition complies with § 2244(d).

Motion to Stay

Petitioner filed a motion to stay on June 6, 2019. ECF No. 7. Petitioner expressed his 

intention to file additional civil suits disputing the validity of his 1983 criminal conviction under 

alternative theories of law, including breach of contract and fraud. Id. at 4-5. This court may stay 

federal habeas proceedings while a petitioner seeks to exhaust state-level appellate or habeas 

remedies, as required by AEDPA. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 

F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003). However, AEDPA does not require a federal habeas 

petitioner to seek other forms of civil relief, such as those contemplated by petitioner, prior to 

filing a federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Because AEDPA does not require 

the types of suits petitioner intends to file as a prerequisite to federal habeas relief, no stay is 

needed and the court denies his motion. 

 

1 Petitioner then sought a federal writ of habeas corpus in this court, which was dismissed for 

failure to state a cognizable claim on January 14, 2009. See Broussard v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv01926-GSA (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009). Thus, even if petitioner could show that the instant 

petition is timely, the petition might yet be dismissed as a second or successive petition. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)

2

 The California Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for review of a Court of Appeal is final on 

filing. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.532(b)(2)(A).

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

4

In the same motion, petitioner seeks an order requiring the prison to provide him with 

regular access to the prison law library. ECF No. 7 at 6. Under § 2254, a writ of habeas corpus is 

available to prisoners challenging the fact or duration of their confinement. See Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). In contrast, if a favorable judgment for the petitioner 

would not “necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement,” the court lacks 

jurisdiction under this provision. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935-37 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request for law library access. 

Order

Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, petitioner must show cause 

why the court should not summarily dismiss the petition. Failure to comply with this order may 

result in the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner’s motion to stay is denied. ECF No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 4