Aurelio Martin Sepulveda et al v. Daniel Paramo

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/25/2015. (See order for further details.) (sbou)

FILED

1

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

2

02/23/15

3
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

sb

4

BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
AURELIO MARTIN SEPULVEDA,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN, ET AL.,
14
Respondents.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 15-0255-CAS (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On January 29, 2015, Petitioner signed a Petition for Writ of

17

Habeas Corpus, which was subsequently filed in this Court, challenging

18

a 2012 Board of Parole Hearings decision finding him unsuitable for

19

parole.

(Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition

20

at 14.)

Petitioner claims that the Board’s denial violated his due

21

process, equal protection, and confrontation rights as well as the Ex

22

Post Facto Clause, and that he is entitled to a jury trial to

23

determine his suitability for parole.

(Petition at 5-6.)

24

For the following reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause

25

why his Petition should not be dismissed because it is time-barred.

26

State prisoners seeking to challenge state administrative decisions in

27

federal habeas corpus proceedings are subject to a one-year statute of

28

limitations.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); see Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d

1

1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding § 2244's limitations period

2

applies to all petitions filed by persons “in custody pursuant to the

3

judgment of a state court,” including those challenging an

4

administrative decision).

5

Petitioner parole became final on December 26, 2012, 120 days after it

6

was issued.

7

§ 2043.

8

the decision became final and expired one year later.

9

McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding federal

Here, the Board’s decision denying

See Cal. Penal Code § 3041(b); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,

The federal statute of limitations began to run the day after
See Redd v.

10

limitations period begins to run the day following parole board’s

11

denial of prisoner’s administrative appeal).

12

until December 27, 2013 to file his federal petition.

13

however, file this Petition until January 29, 2015, 13 months after

14

the deadline.1

Thus, Petitioner had
He did not,

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than March 25, 2015,

16

Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not

17

be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of

18

limitations.

19

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

20

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

DATED: February 23, 2015

21
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\SEPULVEDA, A 255\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

25
26
1

27
28

Pursuant to the “mailbox rule” for prisoner filings, the Court
uses the date Petitioner signed his pleadings (and presumably
delivered them to prison staff for mailing) as the filing date. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988).
2