Emmett Johnson v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/9/2013. (ib)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMETT JOHNSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 vs. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 13-7464 JVS (RZ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 17 The Court issues this Order To Show Cause directed to Petitioner because the 18 face of the petition suggests that his challenge to his 1995 conviction may be time-barred. 19 (Petitioner also fails to use this district’s required petition form, see CIV. L.R. 83-16.1, and 20 to name the proper respondent, namely his prison’s warden. The Court need not address 21 those shortcomings at this time, however.) 22 In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 23 (“AEDPA”), a portion of which established a one-year statute of limitations for bringing 24 a habeas corpus petition in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In most cases, the 25 limitations period commences on the date a petitioner’s conviction became final. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 27 /// 28 /// 1 The time spent in state court pursuing collateral relief in a timely manner is 2 excluded, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and the statute also is subject to equitable tolling. 3 Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (2010). 4 Petitioner indicates that he signed the current petition on September 11, 2013. 5 From the face of the petition and from judicially-noticeable materials, the Court discerns 6 as follows: 7 (a) On April 2, 1995, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner 8 of murder and other crimes. He was sentenced to state prison for life without the 9 possibility of parole. Pet. at 2. 10 (b) The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and on March11, 1998, the California 11 Supreme Court denied further direct review. See docket in People v. Gilbert, No. 12 S066808 (Cal. Supreme Ct.), available online at http://appellatecases. 13 courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1798546&doc_no=S0 14 66808. 15 (c) Petitioner does not appear to have sought certiorari in the United States Supreme 16 Court. His conviction therefore became final in mid-June of 1998, after the high 17 court’s 90-day deadline for seeking certiorari expired. See SUP. CT. R. 13.1. His 18 one-year limitations period began to run on that date. 19 (d) Eleven and a half years passed. In December of 2009, Petitioner began a series of 20 four habeas actions in the same intermediate state appellate court that upheld his 21 conviction, which rejected relief in all four cases. The final such rejection occurred 22 on January 30, 2012. See dockets in Cal. Ct. Appeal case nos. B221183, B229557, 23 B232890 and B238746. 24 25 26 (e) Nearly nineteen more months passed before Petitioner signed the current habeas petition. ***** 27 Unless this Court has miscalculated the limitations period, or some form of 28 additional tolling applies in sufficient measure, this action is time-barred. It became stale -2- 1 in mid-June of 1999, one year after his conviction became final. Petitioner’s 2 commencement of state habeas proceedings thereafter cannot rejuvenate his stale claims. 3 See Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 This Court may raise sua sponte the question of the statute of limitations bar, 5 so long as it gives Petitioner an opportunity to be heard on the matter. Herbst v. Cook, 260 6 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Petitioner shall show cause in writing why this 7 action should not be dismissed as being barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 8 Petitioner shall file his response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause not later than 30 days 9 from the filing date of this Order. 10 11 12 If Petitioner does not file a response within the time allowed, the action may be dismissed for failure to timely file, and for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 DATED: October 10, 2013 15 16 17 18 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?