Jason Hurtado 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 November 20, 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 HURTADO,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
DAVID B. LONG,
14
Respondent.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-8068-GW (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

16

On October 6, 2014, Petitioner signed a Petition for Writ of

17

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

18

a 2010 conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court for murder and

19

conspiracy to commit assault and resultant sentence of fifteen years

20

to life in prison.

21

Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of

22

untrustworthy statements against him and that trial counsel was

23

constitutionally ineffective for failing to properly object to the

24

admission of these statements.

(Petition at 2.)

Petitioner claims that his

(Petition at 5.)

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.

2

became final on May 14, 2013–-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 May 14, 2014.

8

Cir. 2001).

9

October 6, 2014, almost five months after the deadline.1

10

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

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 November 20, 2014,

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

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

DATED: October 21, 2014

16
17
18

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\HURTADO, J 8068\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