Gondee Charles Singletary v. Mike Martel

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/9/2018. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
GONDEE CHARLES SINGLETARY,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
MIKE MARTEL, WARDEN,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 18-157-DMG (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On January 5, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

17

Habeas Corpus in the district court for the Eastern District of

18

California, challenging his convictions in December 1995 for second

19

degree attempted armed robbery and possession of narcotics and

20

resultant life sentence.

21

subsequently transferred to this Court.

22

contends that the prosecution was conducted in bad faith, his sentence

23

is unlawful, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

24

(Petition at 9-30.1)

25

to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed because it is

26

time-barred.

(Petition at 1.)

The Petition was

(Doc. No. 4.)

Petitioner

For the following reasons, Petitioner is ordered

27
28

1

The Court uses the page numbers inserted by the electronic
docketing system to avoid confusion.

1

State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in

2

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

3

limitations.

4

became final on February 6, 1996--60 days after he was sentenced and

5

the time expired for him to file an appeal.

6

F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Mitchell, 173 F. Supp.2d

7

1057, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

8

conviction became final before the effective date of the statute of

9

limitations in April 1996, the one-year period began then and ended a

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction

See Mendoza v. Carey, 449

For prisoners like Petitioner, whose

10

year later in April 1997.

See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243,

11

1246 (9th Cir. 2001).

12

until January 5, 2018, almost 21 years after the deadline.

Petitioner, however, did not file this Petition

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than March 9, 2018,

14

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

15

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

16

limitations.

17

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

18

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

DATED: February 7, 2018

19
20
21

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\SINGLETARY, G 157\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

2