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)

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