Kioki Snowden v. Unknown

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. The court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before March 8, 2024, why the court should not recommend dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. (see document for further details) (hr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KIOKI SNOWDEN, Petitioner, 13 14 15 UNKNOWN, Warden, Respondent. 16 NO. CV 23-6442-HDV (AGR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 17 18 Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 20 conviction and sentence. On the face of the Petition, it appears that the grounds 21 for relief are untimely and unexhausted. The court orders Petitioner to show 22 cause, in writing, on or before March 8, 2024, why the court should not 23 recommend dismissal of the Petition. 24 I. 25 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 27 28 The Petition challenges a judgment in the Superior Court for the County of 1 Los Angeles in Case No. XNWLA074666. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 2.)1 On July 2, 2 2014, a jury found Petitioner guilty of kidnaping, robbery, forcible rape, and other 3 offenses. On August 12, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 4 84 years to life. (See (Case No. XNWLA 5 074666). 6 On September 17, 2015, the California Court of Appeal stayed the 7 sentence on Count 3 for the robbery conviction and otherwise affirmed the 8 judgment with instructions that the sentence on Count 2 for kidnaping with intent 9 to commit robbery is seven years to life with a one-year enhancement. People v. 10 Snowden, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6650, *21 (2015). According to the 11 online database, Petitioner did not file a petition for review or any state habeas 12 petition before the California Supreme Court. 13 Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this 14 court on May 7, 2023. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 24.)2 The Petition raises six 15 nonsensical grounds: (1) the trial court lacks jurisdiction and has not proven its 16 existence; (2) the trial court was not competent to try Petitioner, denied due 17 process, and was not a constitutional court; (3) the trial court misrepresented 18 Petitioner as a corporation rather than as a human being; (4) the trial court 19 subjected Petitioner to “constitutional impermissible application of statutes” 20 without proof that Petitioner’s name was expressly mentioned in the statutes; (5) 21 the trial court subjected Petitioner to double jeopardy in imposing both 22 imprisonment and a monetary penalty; and (6) forced liability for surety bond. 23 These grounds for relief are wholly unexhausted in that they have not been 24 presented to the California Supreme Court. 25 26 27 28 1 Because the Petition is not consecutively paginated, the court cites the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document. 2 The Petition was mailed on August 3, 2023. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 37.) The court gives Petitioner the benefit of the earlier date on the signature page. 2 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Timeliness 4 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 5 which applies to this action, contains a one-year statute of limitations for a petition 6 for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court by a person in custody pursuant to 7 a judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year period starts 8 running on the latest of either the date when a conviction becomes final under 28 9 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) or on a date set in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). The statute of 10 limitations applies to each claim on an individual basis. See Mardesich v. Cate, 11 668 F.3d 1164, 1171 (9th Cir. 2012). 1. 12 13 The Date on Which Conviction Became Final Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the limitations period runs from the date 14 on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 15 expiration of the time for seeking direct review. 16 Petitioner was sentenced and judgment was entered no later than August 17 12, 2014. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on September 18 17, 2015. People v. Snowden, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6650, *21 (2015). 19 Petitioner did not file a petition for review before the California Supreme Court. 20 Therefore, his conviction became final 40 days later on October 27, 2015. 21 Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005). 22 The AEDPA statute of limitations period expired one year later on October 23 27, 2016. Petitioner constructively filed this Petition no earlier than May 7, 2023, 24 over six years later. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 24.) Absent a showing that the 25 accrual date was delayed or the limitations period was tolled, the Petition is 26 untimely. 27 28 2. Delayed Accrual– § 2244(d)(1)(D) Under § 2244(d)(1)(D), the limitations period starts running on “the date on 3 1 which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been 2 discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). 3 The “‘due diligence’ clock starts ticking when a person knows or through diligence 4 could discover the vital facts, regardless of when their legal significance is 5 actually discovered.” Ford v. Gonzalez, 683 F.3d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 2012). 6 The record does not contain any basis for delayed accrual on a date after 7 Petitioner’s conviction and sentence became final. The Petition remains 8 untimely. 3. 9 10 Statutory Tolling Generally, the statute of limitations is tolled during the time “a properly filed 11 application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the 12 pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Waldrip v. 13 Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 734 (9th Cir. 2008). However, once the limitation period has 14 expired, later-filed state habeas petitions do not toll the limitation period. See 15 Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 According to the online California appellate database, Petitioner has not 17 filed any state habeas petitions and is not entitled to statutory tolling. The Petition 18 is untimely unless Petitioner can demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable 19 tolling. 20 4. Equitable Tolling 21 A petitioner who files a federal habeas petition after expiration of the 22 one-year statute of limitations may be entitled to equitable tolling. See Holland v. 23 Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). The petitioner must show “‘(1) that he has 24 been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance 25 stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Id. (citation omitted). The diligence 26 required for equitable tolling is “‘reasonable diligence’” and not maximum feasible 27 diligence. Id. at 653 (citation omitted). The extraordinary circumstances must be 28 the cause of the untimeliness. Bryant v. Ariz. Att’y Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 4 1 (9th Cir. 2010). “Indeed, the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling 2 [under AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Miranda v. 3 Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation 4 omitted). 5 6 The record does not disclose any basis for equitable tolling. Absent a basis for equitable tolling, the Petition remains untimely. 7 III. 8 ORDER 9 Therefore, the court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before March 8, 10 2024, why the court should not recommend dismissal of the Petition for Writ of 11 Habeas Corpus with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. If Petitioner 12 does not respond to this Order to Show Cause, the court will recommend that the 13 District Court dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 14 15 16 17 DATED: February 7, 2024 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?