Griffin v. Martinez

Filing 35

ORDER Extending the Deadline to Show Cause signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 06/02/2020. Show Cause Response due by 7/22/2020.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT LEE GRIFFIN,

12

Petitioner,

13

Case No. 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-JDP
ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO
SHOW CAUSE

v.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 60 DAYS

14

JOEL D. MARTINEZ,
ECF No. 31

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner Robert Lee Griffin, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 30. On April 17, 2020, we issued an order to show

19

cause why the amended petition should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 31. In his

20

response to our order to show cause, petitioner stated that he misunderstood the habeas

21

requirements for timely filing his amended petition under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71

22

(9th Cir. 2003). ECF No. 32. On April 29, 2020, we issued an informational order explaining the

23

requirements for timely filing under Kelly. ECF No. 33. On May 22, 2020, petitioner responded

24

to our informational order, stating that he is unable to conduct legal research in support of his

25

response to our order to show cause due to COVID-19 law library restrictions.1 ECF No. 34. We

26

1

27
28

Petitioner also requests to either proceed with only his four claims of trial error in his original
petition or that he be granted to leave to proceed with his amended petition. ECF No. 34.
Because petitioner’s amended petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, he must
show that either his new claims are timely under AEDPA’s statute of limitations or that his new
1

1

will construe petitioner’s response as a motion for extension of time. For good cause shown, we

2

will grant petitioner an additional 60 days to respond to our order to show cause. His response is

3

now due July 22, 2020.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated:
7

June 2, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9

No. 202

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

claims “relate back” to his original claims. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (9th Cir.
2009). Petitioner has not met either of these requirements. Therefore, in his response to our
order to show cause, petitioner must clearly state whether he wishes to proceed with his original
four claims only, or, in the alternative, he must demonstrate that his new claims are timely under
Kelly. If petitioner seeks to proceed with his amended petition and fails to demonstrate that he
meets the requirements of Kelly, he will proceed with his original petition.

28
2