Rudy Limon v. Kelly Santoro

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 11/10/2016. SEE ORDER. (im)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUDY LIMON, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 KELLY SANTORO, WARDEN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 16-7436-VAP (PJW) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus, challenging his conviction in February 2006 for first 18 degree murder with special circumstances and resultant life sentence. 19 (Petition at 2.) 20 evidence to support the special circumstances allegations, the jury 21 instructions were erroneous, he was convicted on an overly vague 22 aiding and abetting theory, and he received ineffective assistance of 23 counsel at trial and on appeal. 24 following reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why his 25 Petition should not be dismissed because it is time-barred. 26 Petitioner contends that there was insufficient (Petition at 4, 6-7.) For the State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in 27 federal habeas corpus proceedings are subject to a one-year statute of 28 limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Here, Petitioner’s conviction 1 became final on May 12, 2009–-90 days after the California Supreme 2 Court denied his petition for review and the time expired for him to 3 file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme 4 Court. See, e.g., Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 5 2005). Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one year later, 6 on May 12, 2010. 7 Cir. 2001). 8 October 4, 2016, more than six years after the deadline.1 9 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 10, 2016, 10 Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not 11 be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of 12 limitations. 13 recommendation that this case be dismissed. 14 Failure to timely file a response will result in a DATED: October 11, 2016 15 16 17 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\LIMON, R 7436\OSC dismiss pet.wpd 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance together with the Petition. If necessary, the Court will address that motion after the resolution of the timeliness question. 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?