Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00548/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00548-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-8639-PSG(AJW) Date: November 16, 2015

TITLE: Randall Powell v. W.L. Montgomery 

=========================================================================

PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Ysela Benavides 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

 None None

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY

Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 29,

2015.1

 From the face of the petition, it appears that it is barred by the

one-year period of limitation set forth in the AEDPA. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1).

Petitioner was convicted in 2011. [Petition at 2]. The California Court

of Appeal affirmed his conviction on March 12, 2014, and the California

Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review on June 18, 2014.

[Petition at 2-3]. Petitioner’s conviction became final ninety days

later, on September 16, 2014, when the time for filing a petition for a

writ of certiorari expired. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-1159

(9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, petitioner had one year – or until

September 16, 2015 – to file a federal habeas corpus petition. See

Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245-1246 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 978 (2001).

This petition was not filed until October 29, 2015, six weeks after the

limitation period expired. Thus, absent tolling or some other exception

to the statute of limitation, this petition is untimely.

The limitation period does not run while a properly filed state

application for post-conviction relief is pending. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(2). See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 218-219 (2002).

1

 Although the petition was filed by the Clerk’s Office on

November 4, 2015, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the

“mailbox rule,” pursuant to which a state or federal habeas

petitions is deemed filed on the date on which petitioner handed it

to the proper prison official for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 276 (1988). In this case, the Court assumes that

petitioner handed his petition to the proper prison official on the

date he signed the proof of service.

1

Case 2:16-cv-00548-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 2
Petitioner, however, indicates that he did not file any habeas corpus

petitions in state court. [See Petition at 3].

The limitation period also can be equitably tolled. Equitable tolling is

warranted only if a petitioner shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his

rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

his way.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). Nothing in the petition suggests

that petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling. 

Petitioner shall show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as

untimely by filing a response within twenty-eight (28) days of the date

of this order. The response shall indicate whether and when petitioner

filed any petitions challenging his conviction in the state courts. In

addition, if he contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling,

petitioner must describe specifically the nature and duration of any

extraordinary circumstances which petitioner believes impeded his ability

to timely file his petition. All facts relied upon by petitioner must be

proved by testimony contained in a declaration signed under penalty of

perjury, see 28 U.S.C. §1746, or in properly authenticated documents. 

Petitioner’s failure to timely file a response to this order may result

in the dismissal of his petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk_________

CIVIL-GEN 

2

Case 2:16-cv-00548-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2