Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03776/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03776-0/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 FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW 

CAUSE 

Petitioner, Mario Moore, has filed 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. 

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. 

Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in 1989. He 

indicates that his direct appeals ended in 1991, but he filed 

Case 3:15-cv-03776-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/28/15 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

state habeas petitions that were denied in 2005 and 2015. 

Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state 

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). 

It appears that this petition is untimely by many years. 

Petitioner shall show cause within twenty-one (21) days why the 

petition should not be dismissed as untimely.1 Failure to file a 

response will result in this case being dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/26/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

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

 

1

 Petitioner should also indicate when appeals and state habeas 

petitions were filed and denied.

Case 3:15-cv-03776-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 2