Samuel Taylor v. Larry Scribner

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/25/2011. (ca)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAMUEL TAYLOR,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
LARRY SCRIBNER,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 11-5796-AHS (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On July 14, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

17

Corpus, seeking to challenge his September 2000 state court

18

convictions for first degree murder and attempted robbery.

19

at 2.)

20

evidence to support his convictions; his trial and appellate counsel

21

provided constitutionally ineffective assistance; he was subjected to

22

prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, and vindictive

23

prosecution; and the trial court violated his right to a fair trial.

24

(Petition at 5-46.)

25

to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed because it is

26

time-barred.

27
28

(Petition

In the Petition, he claims that there was insufficient

For the following reasons, Petitioner is ordered

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in
federal habeas corpus proceedings are subject to a one-year statute of

1

limitations.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

2

became final in May 2004--90 days after the state supreme court denied

3

review and the time expired for him to file a petition for writ of

4

certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

5

188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999).

6

limitations expired one year later, in May 2005.

7

Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001).

8

did not file this Petition until July 2011, more than six years after

9

the deadline.

See Bowen v. Roe,

Therefore, the statute of
See Patterson v.

Petitioner, however,

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than August 25, 2011,

11

Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not

12

be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of

13

limitations.

14

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

15

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

DATED: July 25, 2011.

16
17
18

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\TAYLOR, S 5796\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

2