Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00586/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Kevin Gomez
Petitioner
Jeanne S. Woodford
Defendant

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY KEVIN GOMEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-0586-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR UNTIMELINESS [Doc. 1]

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 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 or about January 26, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of California. The petition is dated January 2, 2006. (Doc. 1-2, 1-7). 

On May 15, 2006, the matter was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 1). In the petition, Petitioner

challenges the results of a prison disciplinary hearing after which he was found guilty of battery on

an inmate with a weapon. (Doc. 1-2). 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00586-OWW -TAG Document 4 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

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

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). As the instant petition was filed on January 26, 2006, 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).

Case 1:06-cv-00586-OWW -TAG Document 4 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

In this case, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary hearing that was held on July 11, 2002. 

Petitioner appealed the results of the hearing up through the Director’s Level, which denied his

appeal on December 20, 2002. Petitioner then started a “round” of state court habeas proceedings to

exhaust his claims, beginning with a petition in the Superior Court of Monterey County, which

denied his petition on June 27, 2003. (Doc. 1-2, p. 48). On November 19, 2003, the California

Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District denied his petition. (Doc. 1-2, p. 47). On September 22,

2004, the California Supreme Court denied his petition. (Doc. 1-2, p. 46). Thereafter, it appears that

Petitioner attempted to pursue a civil rights claim in the Northern District of California, which was

dismissed on October 14, 2005. (Doc. 1-2, p. 52). As mentioned, the instant petition, which is dated

January 2, 2006, was filed on January 26, 2006. 

Thus, absent any type of tolling, the statute of limitations would have commenced on

September 23, 2004, when the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state habeas petition. 

Petitioner would then have had one year until September 23, 2005, absent applicable tolling, to file

his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9 Cir. th

2001) (holding that Rule 6(a) of the 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 does not allege any circumstances that would entitle him to additional statutory

tolling beyond what has already been discussed. Although Petitioner filed a federal civil rights

lawsuit in the Northern District of California subsequent to the California Supreme Court’s denial of

his state petition, the pendency of a civil rights lawsuit in federal court would not entitled Petitioner

to statutory tolling under the AEDPA. See Duncan v. Walker, 531 U.S. 991 (2001)(Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2), the one-year statute of limitations does not toll for the time a federal application for

writ of habeas corpus is pending in federal court). 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00586-OWW -TAG Document 4 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

Accordingly, the instant petition appears to be untimely by more than three months. Even if

the Court were to rely on the January 2, 2006 signature date on the petition, the petition would still

be untimely. 

ORDER

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

Habeas Corpus 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-00586-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 4