Michael Betton v. P. L. Vasquez

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/3/2014. See order for details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
MICHAEL BETTON,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
P.L. VASQUEZ, WARDEN,
14
Respondent.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-4210-AG (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

16

On April 29, 2014, Petitioner signed a Petition for Writ of

17

Habeas Corpus, which was subsequently filed in this Court, challenging

18

a 2011 conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court for petty theft with a

19

prior and resultant sentence of five years in prison.

20

2.)

21

the theft conviction.

(Petition at

Petitioner claims that there was insufficient evidence to support
(Petition at 5.)

22

For the following reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause

23

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

24

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in

25

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

26

limitations.

27

became final on April 23, 2013–-90 days after the California Supreme

28

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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

1

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

2

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

3

2005).

4

on April 23, 2014.

5

Cir. 2001).

6

April 29, 2014, six days after the deadline.1

7

Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one year later,
See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th

Petitioner, however, did not file this Petition until

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than July 3, 2014,

8

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

9

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

10

limitations.

11

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

12

DATED:

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

June 3, 2014

13
14
15

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\BETTON, M 4210\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

25
26
1

27
28

Pursuant to the “mailbox rule” for prisoner filings, the Court
uses the date Petitioner signed his pleadings (and presumably
delivered them to prison staff for mailing) as the filing date. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988).
2