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
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?