Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02192/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02192-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kory Darty
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent

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

KORY DARTY,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2192-JDP (P)

ORDER

Petitioner, a prisoner at Folsom State Prison, brings this action under section 2254. ECF 

No. 1. However, his claims appear non-cognizable for two reasons. First, he was convicted and 

sentenced in 2010, more than fourteen years before this action was filed. Thus, it appears 

untimely. Second, petitioner appears to have already raised the validity of this conviction and 

received an adverse ruling in this district. For these reasons, I will dismiss the petition with leave 

to amend, so that petitioner may explain why this action should still proceed. I will also grant his 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2.

The petition is before me 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 

Case 2:24-cv-02192-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/17/25 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

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). 

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), federal habeas 

claims must be brought within one year of the state conviction being finalized. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1). Here, even with tolling, it seems unlikely that petitioner’s claims based on a 2010 

conviction can be deemed timely. In his amended complaint he may explain why his claims are 

timely or why they should proceed in spite of their untimeliness. 

Petitioner has also had claims related to this conviction adjudicated in a case brought in 

2013, Darty v. Soto, 2:13-cv-02572-TLN-AC. There, his petition was denied on the merits, id. at 

ECF Nos. 24 & 31. His appeal of that denial was unsuccessful. Id. at ECF No. 37. “AEDPA 

generally bars second or successive habeas petitions.” Balbuena v. Sullivan, 970 F.3d 1176, 1190 

(9th Cir. 2020). Exceptions to this rule exist for claims that were not presented in the first 

petition and that either turn on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral 

review or claims that turn on newly discovered evidence that shows a high probability of actual 

innocence. Id. Regardless, before filing a successive petition, petitioner must obtain permission 

to do so from the relevant court of appeals. Petitioner does not indicate that he has done so in this 

instance. 

I will dismiss the petition and give petitioner leave to amend so that he may explain why 

this action should still proceed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

2. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an amended 

petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

4. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order.

Case 2:24-cv-02192-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/17/25 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02192-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 3