Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03776/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03776-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Fox
Respondent
Mario M.K. Moore
Petitioner

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARIO M.K. MOORE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT FOX, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-3776-TEH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Petitioner, Mario Moore, proceeds with a pro se Petition for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 

judgment of conviction from the San Francisco County Superior 

Court. Petitioner was ordered to show cause why the petition 

should not be dismissed as untimely. 

I 

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment 

of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application 

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 

Id. § 2243. 

Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state 

Case 3:15-cv-03776-TEH Document 7 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the 

latest of the dates on which: (1) the judgment became final 

after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for 

seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application 

created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such 

action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional 

right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right 

was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to 

cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the 

claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due 

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Petitioner’s direct appeal ended in 1991. While he filed 

habeas petitions in 2005, the statute of limitations had already 

expired. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“[S]ection 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the 

limitations period that has ended before the state petition was 

filed,” even if the state petition was timely filed). This 

petition filed in 2015 in untimely by many years. 

II 

The petition is DISMISSED as untimely. Because reasonable 

jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate 

of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/07/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.15\Moore3776.dis.docx

Case 3:15-cv-03776-TEH Document 7 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2