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)

Download PDF
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?