Davis v. Chappell
Filing
3
ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/2/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
FRANK L. DAVIS,
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
No. C 13-1631 SI (pr)
Petitioner,
ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, warden,
Respondent.
/
13
14
15
INTRODUCTION
16
Frank L. Davis, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action for a writ
17
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for review
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
19
United States District Courts.
20
21
BACKGROUND
22
The petition provides the following information: Davis was convicted in Monterey
23
County Superior Court of a violation of California Penal Code § 4573.6, unauthorized
24
possession of a controlled substance in prison. On November 15, 2000, he was sentenced to four
25
years in prison, apparently to run consecutively to a sentence on a 1998 conviction. See Docket
26
# 1-1, p. 2. Davis states that he appealed, but the dates he reports for decisions on his appeal
27
(i.e., 2011 and 2012) appear to be rather distant from the date of the conviction, and actually
28
1
match the dates of denial of his state habeas petitions. The Monterey County Superior Court
2
denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 21, 2011; the California Court of Appeal
3
denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 12, 2011; and the California Supreme
4
Court denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 18, 2012.
5
Davis then filed this action. His federal petition for writ of habeas corpus is dated March
6
18, 2013, and came to the court in an envelope postmarked April 3, 2013. The petition was
7
received at the courthouse on April 5, 2013, and stamped "filed" on April 10, 2013.
8
9
DISCUSSION
10
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
11
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
12
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose
13
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order
14
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears
15
from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. §
16
2243. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District
17
Courts, a district court may also order the respondent to file another pleading where neither
18
summary dismissal nor service is appropriate.
19
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which became
20
law on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ
21
of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital
22
state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which:
23
(1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for
24
seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional
25
state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional
26
right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the
27
Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate
28
2
1
of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other
3
collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).
4
The petition in this action was filed more than a year after petitioner's conviction became
5
final, and may be untimely under the AEDPA's one-year limitation period. This apparent
6
procedural problem should be addressed before the court reaches the merits of the claims raised
7
in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and court need not expend resources
8
addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
9
Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts, respondent must either (1) move to
10
dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the court that respondent is
11
of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.
12
13
CONCLUSION
14
Good cause appearing therefor,
15
1.
The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition upon
16
respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk
17
shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
18
2.
Respondent must file with the court and serve upon petitioner, on or before
19
September 20, 2013, a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that respondent is of the
20
opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted.
21
22
3.
If petitioner wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss, he must do so by filing an
opposition with the court and serving it upon respondent on or before October 18, 2013.
23
4.
Respondent may file and serve a reply on or before November 8, 2013.
24
5.
The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No
25
hearing will be held on the motion. If respondent notifies the court that a motion to dismiss is
26
unwarranted or the motion to dismiss is decided against respondent, the court will then
27
determine whether to require an answer to the petition.
28
3
1
6.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.)
DATED: July 2, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?