Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00164-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMEDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION AS UNTIMELY

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Curley John Broussard, Jr., a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On January 15, 2020, we screened 

petitioner’s habeas petition, found it untimely, and ordered petitioner to show cause why his 

petition should not be summarily dismissed for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. 

ECF No. 8. We granted petitioner fourteen days to respond to the order to show cause. See id. 

The time for responding has passed and petitioner has failed to respond. We recommend that the 

petition be dismissed.

Discussion

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the assigned judge must 

promptly examine the habeas petition and must order a response to the petition unless it “plainly 

appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4 was “designed to give courts an active 

role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 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

958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The court may dismiss claims at screening for “easily 

identifiable” procedural defects. See id. at 968. The court 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) (stating that federal district courts may 

consider the timeliness of a state prisoner’s habeas petition to serve the interests of judicial 

efficiency). 

Here, petitioner challenges deficiencies in his 1983 trial and 1984 post-trial proceedings. 

ECF No. 1 at 4-15. Petitioner sought state-level habeas review multiple times. ECF 8 at 2-3. 

The most recent of his state habeas petitions was rejected by the state supreme court in 2008. Id. 

Petitioner has failed to show how the instant petition, filed over 35 years after the conviction he 

challenges, meets the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s statute of limitations for 

petitioners seeking habeas relief under § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (stating that absent 

extraordinary circumstances, a federal habeas petition must be filed within one year of the “date 

on which the [challenged] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 

expiration of the time for seeking such review”). In the absence of any evidence showing that his 

petition is timely, we recommend dismissal of the petition.

Certificate of Appealability

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

court’s dismissal 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). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural 

grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate 

of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it 

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 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

to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in 

dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 

Here, reasonable jurists would not find our conclusion debatable or conclude that 

petitioner should proceed further. Thus, we recommend that the court decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as untimely. We 

submit these findings and recommendations 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. The document containing the 

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

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 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 3