Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Felker
Respondent
Manuel Lee Hunt
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

 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LEE HUNT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

T. FELKER, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01281-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR VIOLATION OF THE ONE-YEAR

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A preliminary review of the Petition, however, reveals that the

petition may be untimely and should therefore be dismissed. 

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 5
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

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th

Cir.2001).

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. Limitation Period for Filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

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). The instant petition was filed on th

September 5, 2007, and thus, 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 most cases, the limitation period begins running on the date that the petitioner’s direct

review became final. Here, Petitioner was convicted on January 18, 2002. (Doc. 1, p. 1). In this

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 5
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

In California, the Supreme Court, intermediate Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts all have original habeas 1

corpus jurisdiction. See, Nino 183 F.3d at 1006, n. 2 (9 Cir. 1999). Although a Superior Court order denying habeas corpus th

relief is non-appealable, a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeal. Id. If the Court of

Appeal denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may

instead file an original habeas petition in the Supreme Court. See, id. 

 3

case, the petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on February 24, 2004. 

Thus, direct review would conclude on May 24, 2004, when the ninety-day period for seeking review

in the United States Supreme Court expired. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887 (1983); Bowen v.

Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9 Cir.1999); Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 347 (8 Cir.1998). th th

Petitioner would have one year from May 24, 2004, or until May 24, 2005, absent applicable tolling,

in which to file his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

As mentioned the instant petition was filed on September 5, 2007, over two years after the

limitations period expired. Thus, unless Petitioner is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling, the

petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

C. Tolling of the Limitation Period Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)

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

Nino v. Galaza, the Ninth Circuit held that the “statute of limitations is tolled from the time the first

state habeas petition is filed until the California Supreme Court rejects the petitioner’s final collateral

challenge.” Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9 Cir. 1999); see, also, Taylor v. Lee, 186 F.3d 1 th

557 (4th Cir. 1999); Barnett v. Lemaster, 167 F.3d 1321, 1323 (10th Cir. 1999). The Court reasoned

that tolling the limitations period during the time a petitioner is preparing his petition to file at the

next appellate level reinforces the need to present all claims to the state courts first and will prevent

the premature filing of federal petitions out of concern that the limitation period will end before all

claims can be presented to the state supreme court. Id. at 1005. However, the limitations period is

not tolled for the time such an application is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 121 S.Ct.

2120, 2129 (2001). 

Petitioner asserts that he filed a “round” of state habeas petitions to exhaust the claims in the

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner provided no filing date for his petition in the California Supreme Court and the high court’s order does 1

not indicate the filing date. Therefore, the Court accessed the California courts’ electronic database for the California

Supreme Court and determined that Petitioner filed his petition on September 30, 2005.

 4

instant petition, beginning with a petition in the Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, pp. 149-154). 

 That petition was filed on January 27, 2004 and denied on March 26, 2004, both dates occurring

before the one-year limitations period had even begun to run in Petitioner’s case. (Id.). Thus, they

are irrelevant to the Court’s calculation of tolling.

Then, on August 3, 2005, again before the one-year statute had commenced, Petitioner filed a

habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (“5 DCA”) that was th

denied on July 22, 2005, after the one-year period had commenced. (Doc. 1, Exh. O). Petitioner

thereafter waited seventy days, until September 30, 2005 to file another petition in the California

Supreme Court that was denied on September 13, 2006. (Doc. 1, Exh. P).1

Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 5, 2007. However, the Court

will use August 30, 2007, the date Petitioner signed the petition and, presumably, delivered it to

prison officials for mailing to this Court under the “mailbox” rule. The time elapsed between the

California Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s last state petition on September 13, 2006, and the

filing of the instant petition is thus 351 days. However, in addition, Petitioner waited for seventy

days between the 5 DCA’s denial of his petition on July 22, 2005, and the date he filed his petition th

in the California Supreme Court on September 30, 2005. The total un-tolled time, therefore, is 421

days, which makes the instant petition 56 days late. 

The Court cannot conclude otherwise than that the petition is untimely and must be

dismissed. However, in an excess of caution, the Court will permit Petitioner to file any further

evidence he has that would entitle him to AEDPA tolling such that the petition would be timely. 

Petitioner will be afforded the opportunity, in his response to this Order to Show Cause, to provide

additional information regarding when and where he filed his state habeas petitions if he believes

that the instant petition is timely and that he is entitled to statutory tolling under the AEDPA. 

 ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date of service

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/14/08 Page 4 of 5
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

 5

of this Order why the Petition should not be dismissed for violation of the one-year

statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In his response, Petitioner should provide

the dates on which he filed any state habeas petitions, the names of the courts in which he

filed those petitions, the results, if any, of those petitions, and the dates the results were

issued. Petitioner should provide, where possible, copies of all petitions filed as well as

copies of the rulings by the state courts.

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

Recommendations recommending that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01281-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 5