Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02577/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02577-0/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

1311 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

r: 

\1 eCT 26 PH 3: 2.3 

., \... '\ l.. r 

" 

\"f ' 

"" ~l .... , " -¥:..------..----­

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARDR. SAMUELSON, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

M. SPEARMAN, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Civil No. 12cv2577 -WQH (BGS) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a document wherein he 

requests the Court to enter a stay while he completes exhaustion of his state court remedies 

regarding a challenge to the denial ofparole, indicating that he is concerned that the statute of 

limitations may expire. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Petitioner has not filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this action. Therefore, 

unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas proceedings in this Court. 

Calderon (Nicolaus) v. United States District Court, 98 F .3d 1102, 1107 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996) 

("Unlike non-capital prisoner who initiate habeas proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for 

appointment ofcounsel."); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). 

Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital prisoner, that is, a prisoner under sentence 

of death, and there is nothing in the documents he has submitted which indicates that he is a 

capital prisoner. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action in this Court he must (as 

J:',Ewt')"om-U:F1t£·PROS£'WQH' llovl'77·Dlllmm.wpd, 1(12312 -1- 12cv2577 

Case 3:12-cv-02577-WQH-BGS Document 2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II is the case with all non-capital prisoners) file a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus, which will 

2 II be given a separate civil case number. Once that petition has been filed, Petitioner may move 

3 II for stay and abeyance. However, jfPetitioner is in fact a capital prisoner, he may request the 

4 II Court to re-open this action in order to permit him to file a Petition under the civil case number 

II assigned to this action. 

6 II Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that there is a one-year period oflimitation applies 

7 II to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 

811 State court. The limitation period begins to run on the latest of: 

9 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the 

conclusion ofdirect review or the expiration ofthe time for seeking such review; 

11 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation ofthe Constitution or laws ofthe 

12 United States is removed, ifthe applicant was prevented from filing 

by such State action; 

13 

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was 

14 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 

16 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or 

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise 

17 of due diligence. 

18 II 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(l)(A)-(D) (West 2006). 

19 II The statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is 

II pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Ninov. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9thCir. 1999). But 

21 II see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4,8 (2000) (holding that "an application is 'properly filed' when 

22 II its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are 

23 II in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. "); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3 d 

24 II 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which is 

II ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither "properly filed" nor "pending" while it was under 

26 II consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as 

2711 amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations 

28 II continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending; that is, the filing ofa federal habeas 

l;\E""«)'_\.EflLE.PROSE\WQlf.llCV1YT1-OimtiM.wpd, lO2312 -2- 12cv2577 

Case 3:12-cv-02577-WQH-BGS Document 2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 3
corpus petition does nottoll the statute oflimitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167,181-82 

2 (2001). 

3 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

4 II This action is DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner has not filed a Petition 

5 II and has therefore failed to initiate federal habeas proceedings in this action. IfPetitioner is a 

6 II capital prisoner he may request to have this case reopened. The Clerk ofCourt shall send 

7 II Petitioner a blank Southern District ofCalifornia habeas petition form and a blank Southern 

811 District ofCalifornia in forma pauperis application along with a copy ofthis Order. 

9 II IT IS SO ORDERED. 

10~DATED: $972­

11 Hon. William.5. Hayes United States..&ltistrict Judge 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

l:\E~_EFILE.PROSE\WQH\I'kv1~TT.DiiIniu.wpd, Hl:1311 -3- 12cv2577 

Case 3:12-cv-02577-WQH-BGS Document 2 Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 3