Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fisher
Respondent
Armando Jacobo Gonzalez
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO JACOBO GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

FISHER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01731-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTE OF 

LIMITATIONS

ECF No. 1

RESPONSE DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Petitioner Armando Jacobo Gonzalez, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for 

preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the 

judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to 

the petition unless 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). 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) (Federal district courts may consider the timeliness of a state prisoner’s 

habeas petition to serve the interests of judicial efficiency.).

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/14/20 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 the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), petitioners seeking 

habeas relief under § 2254 must comply with the statute of limitations set by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The one-year period begins on the latest of four dates:

(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. 

Id.; see also Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The statute of limitations period can be tolled in various ways. For example, 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)).

Petitioner states that he exhausted his state-level remedies through a direct appeal 

followed by a petition for review at the California Supreme Court; both were unsuccessful. ECF 

No. 1 at 2-3. To comply with § 2244(d), petitioner must have either filed his petition within one 

year of the California Supreme Court’s denial of review or show he is entitled to tolling under one 

of the narrow exceptions of § 2244(d)(1)(B-D). Here, petitioner filed his petition on December 

12, 2019—834 days after the California Supreme Court’s “judgment became final by the 

conclusion of direct review” on August 30, 2017. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1 Because the 

record indicates that petition may “fall outside the one-year time period, the petitioner has the 

 

1

 The California Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for review of a Court of Appeal is final on 

filing. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.532(b)(2)(A).

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/14/20 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

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, 

petitioner must explain to this court how his petition complies with § 2244(d).

Order

Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, petitioner must show cause 

why the court should not summarily dismiss the petition. Failure to comply with this order may 

result in the dismissal of the petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3