Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Peck Jackson
Petitioner
Robert Neuschmid
Respondent

Document Text:

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

GREGORY PECK JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00198-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS 

UNTIMELY AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Gregory Peck Jackson, a state prisoner without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary 

review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing § 2254 Cases

4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly 

appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 

(9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Discussion

This 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) (explaining that federal district courts may consider the timeliness of a 

state prisoner’s habeas petition to serve the interests of judicial efficiency.). Under the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), petitioners seeking habeas relief 

Case 1:20-cv-00198-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/02/20 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

under § 2254 must comply with a one-year statute of limitations. For most habeas petitioners, the 

one-year clock starts to run on “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 42 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Statutory tolling applies to the “time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 

Id. § 2244(d)(2). A petitioner can obtain equitable tolling if he shows: “(1) that he has been 

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

prevented timely filing.” Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546, 558 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Holland 

v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)).

Here, petitioner was convicted of assault with a firearm on February 11, 2014; he did not 

seek direct review of his conviction. ECF No. 1 at 1, 7. Absent any statutory or equitable tolling, 

the one-year statute of limitations expired on April 14, 2014 under § 2244(d)(1)(A).

1

 Over five 

years later, on September 19, 2019, petitioner sought habeas relief in the state supreme court.

2

 Id. 

at 4. His petition was dismissed on December 18, 2019 as untimely. Id. Petitioner then sought 

federal habeas relief on January 23, 2020. Because the record indicates that the petition may “fall 

outside the one-year time period, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that he is entitled 

to tolling.” Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Therefore, the petitioner must explain to this court 

how his petition complies with § 2244(d).

Moreover, petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. To pass screening, 

petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal law”—meaning a violation of a 

U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). Federal habeas 

relief is not available for alleged violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 

 

1 We arrive at July 19, 2016 by adding 60 days to the date of petitioner’s conviction, which is the 

time for seeking direct review of a criminal conviction in California. See Cal. R. of Ct. 8.308(a)

(West 2010). 

2 This application did not affect the timeliness of the instant petition. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 

F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999) (“AEDPA’s statute of limitations is not tolled from the time a 

final decision is issued on direct state appeal and the time the first state collateral challenge is 

filed because there is no case ‘pending’ during that interval.”).

Case 1:20-cv-00198-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/02/20 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

(1991); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (“A federal court may not issue a writ [of habeas 

corpus] on the basis of a perceived error of state law.”). Here, petitioner claims that California’s 

procedure for initiating a criminal case by felony complaint is improper.

3

 ECF No. 1 at 15. 

Petitioner argues that the complaint did not confer jurisdiction on the state trial court, did not give 

petitioner proper notice of the charges brought against him, and that the filing itself was a public 

offense that nullified petitioner’s conviction. See id. at 15-28. We cannot find any “clearly 

established federal law” holding California’s criminal complaint procedure unconstitutional. 

Therefore, we will order petitioner to show how his claims are cognizable under federal habeas 

review. 

Order

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, petitioner is ordered to show cause 

why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely and for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

 

3 Notably, the bulk of the petition appears to be a photocopy of a boilerplate habeas petition

challenging the California’s criminal complaint procedure and is devoid of any references to the 

facts or circumstances of petitioner’s case.

Case 1:20-cv-00198-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3