Jason Tyrone Jackson v. Jury Sentence

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 5/14/2014. 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. See order for further details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JASON TYRONE JACKSON,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
JURY SENTENCE,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-2673-CAS (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On April 9, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

17

Corpus, apparently seeking to challenge a 2002 conviction in Los

18

Angeles Superior Court for murder, residential burglary, and robbery,

19

and resultant sentence of life without parole.

20

Petitioner states that he is “trying to find a release date” and

21

claims that the court staff subjected him to cruel and unusual

22

punishment in failing to deal with his mental illness during his trial

23

and that he did “not know what was going on in the courtroom.”

24

(Petition at 2, 3.)

(Petition at 2.)

25

For the following reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause

26

why his Petition should not be dismissed because it is time-barred.

27

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in

28

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 on January 31, 2006–-90 days after the California Supreme

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

2005).

7

on January 31, 2007.

8

(9th Cir. 2001).

9

until April 9, 2014, more than seven years after the deadline.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than May 14, 2014,

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

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

DATED:

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

April 14, 2014

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\JACKSON, J 2673\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

2