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)

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 www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ (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