Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731-1/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

ARMANDO JACOBO GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

FISHER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01731-NONE-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH STATUTE OF 

LIMITATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Armando Jacobo Gonzalez, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On January 14, 2020, we ordered petitioner 

to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 9. The time for 

filing a response to the order to show cause has passed and petitioner has failed to do so.

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, we have “an active role in 

summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” and we may dismiss claims at

screening for “easily identifiable” procedural defects. Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th 

Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, we 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.).

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 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

27

28

2

Absent any statutory or equitable tolling, a one-year statute of limitations period for filing 

federal habeas petitions starts to run on “the date on which the judgment became final by the 

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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Here, petitioner filed his federal habeas petition over two years after 

his underlying judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review. See ECF No. 9 at 2. 

Petitioner did not present any arguments or evidence supporting statutory or equitable tolling. 

Therefore, we recommend that the petition be dismissed as untimely. 

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 

requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 

adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 

1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes 

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 

standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Thus, we recommend that the court decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court grant dismiss this case as 

untimely. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding 

over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the 

service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such 

objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 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

27

28

3

Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3