Edward James Mouton v. D Paramo

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than February 5, 2016, 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. See Order for details. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
EDWARD JAMES MOUTON,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
D. PARAMO,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 15-9952-VBF (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On December 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

17

Habeas Corpus, challenging a September 11, 2007 conviction for second

18

degree robbery with gang and firearm allegations and resultant 16-year

19

sentence.

20

illegal, he entered a no contest plea based on “unintelligible” advice

21

from his counsel, and he was denied the effective assistance of

22

counsel.

23

ordered to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed because

24

it is time-barred.

25

(Petition at 2.)

(Petition at 5-6.)

Petitioner contends that his sentence is

For the following reasons, Petitioner is

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in

26

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

27

limitations.

28

became final on November 12, 2007–-60 days after he was sentenced and

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

1

the time expired for him to file an appeal.1

2

449 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Mitchell, 173 F. Supp.

3

2d 1057, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

4

expired one year later, on November 12, 2008.

5

did not file this Petition until December 21, 2015, more than seven

6

years after the deadline.2

7

See Mendoza v. Carey,

Therefore, the statute of limitations
Petitioner, however,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than February 5, 2016,

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

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

DATED: January 5, 2016

13
14
15

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\MOUTON, E 9952\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because the sixtieth day after he was sentenced was a
Saturday, Petitioner had until Monday 12 November, 2007, to file the
petition. Fed. Rules of Civ. Pro. Rule 6(a).
2

Petitioner failed to sign or date the Petition. He did,
however, sign and date the proof of service that he attached to the
Petition, which date the Court assumes is the day he delivered the
Petition for filing pursuant to the “mailbox rule” and, therefore,
uses as the filing date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76
(1988).
2