Luis L. Carranza v. Warden
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/5/2017. SEE ORDER. (im)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LUIS L. CARRANZA,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
WARDEN,
14
Respondent.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 17-6474-JVS (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On August 22, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
17
Habeas Corpus, challenging his conviction in December 2011 for first
18
degree murder and attempted murder and resultant sentence of 130 years
19
to life.
20
(Cal. Ct. App. July 2, 2013).)
21
court erred in excluding third-party culpability evidence showing that
22
his brother Adrian was involved in the shooting.
23
attached pages; Carranza, 2013 WL 3357941, at *4-7.)
24
following reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why his
25
Petition should not be dismissed because it is time-barred.
26
(Petition at 1; People v. Carranza, 2013 WL 3357941, at *4
Petitioner contends that the trial
(Petition at 6 and
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 December 31, 2013–-90 days after the California
2
Supreme Court denied his petition for review and the time expired for
3
him to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
4
Supreme Court.
5
(9th Cir. 2005).
6
year later, on December 31, 2014.
7
1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001).
8
Petition until August 22, 2017, almost three years after the
9
deadline.1
10
See, e.g., Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069
Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one
See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d
Petitioner, however, did not file this
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than October 5, 2017,
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: September 5, 2017
16
17
18
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\CARRANZA, L 6474\OSC dismiss pet.wpd
25
26
1
27
28
Petitioner did not sign or date the Petition, but did sign and
date the proof of service attached to the Petition. The Court will
assume that date is the date Petitioner delivered the Petition to
prison officials for filing.
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?