Edgar Zavala v. Ralph Diaz

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than July 25, 2012,Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Failure to timely file a response will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. **PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS** (ca)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
EDGAR ZAVALA,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
RALPH DIAZ, WARDEN,
14
Respondent.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. SA CV 12-1002-DSF (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On June 14, 2012, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for

17

Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking to challenge his December 2004 state

18

convictions for lewd and lascivious acts on a minor.

19

People v. Zavala, 2006 WL 650048 (Cal. App. Mar. 15, 2006).)

20

Petition, he claims that the complaining witness’s refusal to answer

21

questions violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, trial

22

counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the

23

introduction of the witness’s prior testimony, and appellate counsel

24

provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the confrontation

25

clause claim on appeal.

26

reasons, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why his Petition should

27

not be dismissed because it is time-barred.

28

(Petition at 5-6.)

(Petition at 2;
In the

For the following

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

the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming his conviction.

5

Thus, his conviction became final on April 24, 2006--40 days after

6

that decision.

7

2008).

8

on April 24, 2007.

9

Cir. 2001).

10

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Petitioner did not seek review of

See Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir.

Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one year later,
See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th

Petitioner, however, did not file this Petition until

June 14, 2012, more than five years after the deadline.

11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than July 25, 2012,

12

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

13

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

14

limitations.

15

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

16

DATED:

Failure to timely file a response will result in a

June 25, 2012

17
18
19

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\ZAVALA, E 1002\OSC dismiss pet.wpd

2