Jose Sauceda-Contreras v. Marion Spearman

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION AS BARRED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the foregoing, petitioner is ordered to show cause why the instant Petition should not be dismissed as time barred. Specifically, no later than August 7, 2015, petitioner must submit to the Court a response to this Order to Show Cause making clear his arguments, if any, as to why the Petition should not be dismissed as time barred. *See Order for details.* (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12

JOSE SAUCEDA-CONTRERAS,

13

Petitioner,

14

v.

15

MARION SPEARMAN, Warden,

16
17

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. SA CV 15-1117-JAK (PLA)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
OF HABEAS PETITION AS BARRED BY
THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Petitioner, through counsel, initiated this action on July 8, 2015, by filing a Petition for Writ

21

of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition” or

22

“Pet.”), along with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Petition. The Petition

23

challenges petitioner’s November 26, 2008, conviction in the Orange County Superior Court in

24

case number 07NF0170, of first degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187(a)). (Pet. at 2).

25

Petitioner alleges four grounds for relief: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted petitioner’s

26

statements taken by the police who ignored his unequivocal invocation of his rights to counsel and

27

to remain silent; (2) without petitioner’s statement, the respondent did not establish a corpus

28

1

delecti or cause of death; (3) instructing the jury with CALCRIM number 362 impermissibly

2

permitted the jury to draw inferences of guilt; and (4) cumulative error. (Pet. at 5-6).

3
4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

The instant Petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

7

(“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations, as set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Calderon

8

v. U.S. Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1997).1 In most cases, the limitation

9

period begins to run from “the date on which the judgment became final by conclusion of direct

10

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

11

As stated above, petitioner was convicted pursuant to a jury trial on November 26, 2008.

12

(Pet. at 2). Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, and on February 16, 2011, the

13

court of appeal reversed petitioner’s conviction on the ground that the police violated his Miranda2

14

rights. (Pet. at 2-3). On November 26, 2012, after the California Supreme Court reversed the

15

decision of the California Court of Appeal (People v. Sauceda-Contreras, 55 Cal. 4th 203 (2012)),

16

the court of appeal affirmed petitioner’s conviction. (Pet. at 3). Petitioner’s petition for review in

17

the California Supreme Court was denied on March 13, 2013, without comment or citation to

18

authority (id.), and his conviction became final on June 11, 2013, when the ninety-day period for

19

filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court expired. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59

20

(9th Cir. 1999). Thus, the one-year limitation period for seeking federal habeas relief began to run

21

on June 12, 2013, and expired on June 11, 2014.

22

On its face, therefore, it appears that the instant Petition, filed on July 8, 2015, is barred by

23

the statute of limitations.

24

/

25
26
27
28

1

Beeler was overruled on other grounds in Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d
530, 540 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
2

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
2

1

III.

2

ORDER

3
4

Based on the foregoing, petitioner is ordered to show cause why the instant Petition
should not be dismissed as time barred.

5

Specifically, no later than August 7, 2015, petitioner must submit to the Court a response

6

to this Order to Show Cause making clear his arguments, if any, as to why the Petition should not

7

be dismissed as time barred.

8
9

Failure to respond by August 7, 2015, may result in the instant Petition being
summarily dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

10
11

DATED: July 20, 2015
PAUL L. ABRAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3