Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04612/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04612-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE BADUE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R WATKINS, Parole Agent, et al,

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-4612 VRW (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING

MOTION TO DISMISS OR

NOTICE THAT MOTION IS

UNWARRANTED

Petitioner was convicted of failure to register as a sex offender after a

court trial in Santa Clara County superior court. The trial court also found that

petitioner had suffered a prior prison term and, on March 6, 2003, sentenced him

to the middle term of two years in state prison. 

On April 19, 2004, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment

of the trial court. Petitioner did not seek review in the Supreme Court of

California. 

On July 23, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

the Supreme Court of California. It was denied on August 15, 2007.

On September 6, 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254. Petitioner is currently on parole. 

Case 3:07-cv-04612-VRW Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 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

DISCUSSION

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 USC § 2254(a). It 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." Id § 2243. It also may order respondent to file another pleading where

neither summary dismissal nor service is appropriate. See Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.

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 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. 28 USC 

§ 2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year

time limit. Id § 2244(d)(2).

/

Case 3:07-cv-04612-VRW Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 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

A state prisoner with a conviction finalized after April 24, 1996, such as

petitioner, ordinarily must file his federal habeas petition within one year of the

date his process of direct review came to an end. See Calderon v United States

District Court (Beeler), 128 F3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir 1997), overruled in part on

other grounds by Calderon v United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F3d 530

(9th Cir 1998) (en banc). Here, because petitioner did not seek review from the

Supreme Court of California after the California Court of Appeal affirmed the

judgment of the trial court on April 19, 2004, petitioner’s process of direct review

came to an end on May 29, 2004, when the time allotted for seeking review from

the state high court expired. The one-year limitation period accordingly began

running against petitioner the next day, May 30, 2004. See Smith v Duncan, 297

F3d 809, 812-13 (9th Cir 2002) (limitation period began running day after time to

seek discretionary review of California Court of Appeal's decision in the

Supreme Court of California expired, which was 40 days after the Court of

Appeal filed its opinion) (citing Cal Rules of Court 24(a), 28(b), 45(a); Cal Civ

Proc Code § 12a). The instant petition was not filed until September 6, 2007,

however. And although petitioner sought state collateral relief which may toll

the one-year time limit under § 2244(d)(2), it appears that he did not begin doing

so until well after the limitation period expired on May 30, 2004. This apparent

untimeliness 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.

Case 3:07-cv-04612-VRW Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 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

CONCLUSION 

Good cause appearing therefor,

1 The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney,

the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy

of this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve upon petitioner,

within 60 days of the issuance of this order, 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 30

days of his receipt of the motion to dismiss.

4. Respondent may file and serve a reply within 15 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 determines at a

latter date that a hearing is required. 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. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.07\Badue, S2.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-04612-VRW Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4