Jose Antonio Arevalo v. David B Long

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than May 17, 2013,Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Failure to timely file a response will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (ca)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JOSE ANTONIO AREVALO,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
DAVID B. LONG, WARDEN,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-2627-AG (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On April 9, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for

17

Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking to challenge his January 2010

18

convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under

19

fourteen and resulting prison sentence of 75 years to life.

20

at 2.)

21

counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects.

22

(Petition at 5; attached memorandum at 1-10.)

23

reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why his Petition should

24

not be dismissed because it is time-barred.

25

(Petition

In the Petition, he claims that both trial and appellate

For the following

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in

26

federal habeas corpus proceedings are subject to a one-year statute of

27

limitations.

28

became final on October 18, 2011–-90 days after the California Supreme

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

1

Court denied his petition for review and the time expired for him to a

2

petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

3

See, e.g., Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.

4

2005).

5

on October 18, 2012.

6

(9th Cir. 2001).

7

until April 9, 2013, nearly six months after the deadline.

8
9

Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one year later,
See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246

Petitioner, however, did not file this Petition

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than May 17, 2013,
Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not

10

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

11

limitations.

12

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

13

DATED:

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

April 17, 2013

14
15
16

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\AREVALO, J 2627\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

2