Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01181/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01181-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO C. FUNTANILLA, JR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KEN CLARK, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01181-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR UNTIMELINESS [Doc. 1]

ORDER REQUIRING THAT RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BE FILED

WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition. (Id.). In that petition,

Petitioner alleges that the state law used at a February 5, 1997 prison disciplinary proceeding was

unconstitutional and therefore the punishment resulting from that proceeding was unlawful as well. 

(Doc. 1, p. 8). 

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Screening.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an

Case 1:06-cv-01181-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9 Cir.2001). th

The Ninth Circuit, in Herbst v. Cook, concluded that a district court may dismiss sua sponte

a habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds so long as the court provides the petitioner

adequate notice of its intent to dismiss and an opportunity to respond. 260 F.3d at 1041-42. 

B. Statute of Limitations.

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas

corpus filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063

(1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 586 th

(1997). The instant petition was filed on August 31, 2006, therefore it is subject to the provisions of

the AEDPA. 

The AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As amended, § 2244, subdivision (d)

reads: 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if

the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

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

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

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or

other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall

not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

In this case, Petitioner was convicted in 1992. (Doc. 1, p. 1). On February 5, 1997,

Petitioner appeared before the Pelican Bay State Prison administration segregation Institutional

Case 1:06-cv-01181-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Classification Committee, at which time the recommendation was made to refer Petitioner’s case to

the Departmental Review Board (“DRB”) for a decision related to Petitioner’s prior behavior. (Id. at

p. 8). On March 20, 1997, the DRB recommended that Petitioner receive twelve months

confinement in the Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”), as the mid-term punishment for harassment. (Id.

at p. 21). On April 15, 1997, the Classification Services Unit endorsed the DRB recommendation. 

(Id. at p. 25). 

Thus, the statute of limitations would have commenced on April 16, 1997, when the decision

to uphold the DRB recommendation of a one-year SHU placement was made. Petitioner then had

one year until April 16, 1998, absent applicable tolling, to file his federal petition for writ of habeas

corpus. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9 Cir. 2001) (holding that Rule 6(a) of the th

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the calculation of statutory tolling applicable to the one

year limitations period.) 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) states that the “time during which a properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward” the one year limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In this

case, Petitioner filed his first state habeas petition in the Superior Court for the County of Kings on

January 27, 2003. (Doc. 1, p. 35). However, at that point, the one-year statute has expired almost

five years earlier. Thus, even assuming, without deciding, that Petitioner would have been entitled

to statutory tolling during the pendency of the Superior Court petition and, thereafter, during the

pendency of the state habeas petitions filed subsequently in the California Court of Appeal and the

California Supreme Court, the petition is untimely because statutory tolling does not apply if the

statute of limitations has expired before the state habeas petition that would trigger statutory tolling

has run. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9 Cir. 2000)(petitioner is not entitled to tolling th

where limitations period has already run prior to filing state habeas proceedings). Therefore,

Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling for any of the period between April 16, 1998 and the

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01181-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 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

The state courts appear to have been equally troubled by Petitioner’s tardiness in pursuing a 1

claim that accrued in 1997. Both the Superior Court and the California Supreme Court denied

Petitioner’s state habeas petitions on procedural grounds, citing his untimeliness. (Doc. 1, pp. 33; 35).

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

filing of the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition appears to be untimely by over eight

years.

1

ORDER

Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why the instant Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc.1) should not be dismissed for violating the limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d). Petitioner is GRANTED twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order to

respond in writing.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in Findings and

Recommendations that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01181-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 4