Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00106/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00106-2/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

Order Requesting Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellordmtd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT RUSSELL, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0106 JF (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING MOTION

TO DISMISS OR NOTICE THAT

MOTION IS UNWARRANTED

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court initially denied Petitioner’s incomplete application to proceed in

forma pauperis without prejudice and extended the time for Petitioner to submit a completed

application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner filed a completed in forma pauperis

application. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed

the petition with leave to amend because it was unclear whether Petitioner had exhausted his

claims in the state court before filing the instant habeas action. Petitioner filed an amended

petition, which was mistakenly opened and received as a new habeas action in case no. C 07-319

JF (PR). 

**E-filed 7/12/07**

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 13 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Requesting Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellordmtd 2

The amended petition was transferred to the instant habeas action on May 1, 2007. The Court

orders Respondent to address the timeliness of the amended petition by filing a motion to dismiss

or a notice that such motion is unwarranted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, a Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of

assault and rape. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years-to-life with an additional ten

year term in state prison on October 31, 2002. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction

in 2003. The state supreme court denied a petition for review in 2004. Petitioner filed a state

habeas petition which was denied. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on January

10, 2006. The amended petition was filed on January 18, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears

from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. §

2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). The

Court may order the Respondent to file another pleading where neither service nor summary

dismissal is appropriate. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under

Section 2254. 

B. Statute of Limitations

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) became law on

April 24, 1996, and imposed for the first time a statute of limitation on petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 13 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Requesting Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellordmtd 3

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct

review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time

during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

The one-year period generally will run from “the date on which the judgment became

final by conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The instant petition was filed on January 10, 2006, approximately two

years after the conclusion of Petitioner’s direct review. It is unclear whether Petitioner’s state

habeas petition would toll the statute of limitations in this case for a sufficient period of time. 

Accordingly, the instant petition appears to be untimely.

This apparent procedural problem should be addressed before the Court reaches the

merits of the claims raised in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and Court

need not expend resources addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4

of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, Respondent shall either (1)

move to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the court that

Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the amended

petition (docket no. 10), and all attachments upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

Petitioner. 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 13 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Requesting Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellordmtd 4

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve upon Petitioner, within forty-five

days of the date this order is filed, a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, or a notice that

Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss, he shall do so by filing an

opposition with the Court and serving it upon Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of

the motion to dismiss.

4. Respondent shall file and serve a reply within fifteen days of receipt of

Petitioner’s opposition.

5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No

hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. If Respondent

notifies the Court that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted or the motion is denied, the Court will

then determine whether to require an answer to the petition. 

6. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of

the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all parties informed

of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” 

He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge 

7/12/07

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 13 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Requesting Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellordmtd 5

A copy of this ruling was sent to the following: 

Herbert Russell, Jr.

T-72288

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060 

Herbert Russell, Jr.

T-72288

Pelican Bay State Prison 

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531-7500

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 13 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 5