Czekus v. Knipp

Filing 3

ORDER on Initial Review. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ABA D. CZEKUS,

9

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-2928 EMC (pr)

W. KNIPP, Warden,

12

Respondent.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of

17

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 United

19

States District Courts.

20

II.

BACKGROUND

21

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: Petitioner pled nolo

22

contendere and was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of aggravated sexual assault of

23

a child and committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under age 14. See Cal. Penal Code

24

§§ 269, 288(b)(1). He was sentenced on December 15, 2009 to 32 years in state prison. He states

25

that he appealed in 2011, although it appears that he is referring to his state habeas petitions.

26

See Docket # 1, p. 3. His state habeas petitions were unsuccessful: the Santa Clara County Superior

27

Court denied his petition in 2011; the California Court of Appeal denied his petition in 2011; and the

28

California Supreme Court denied his petition in 2012.

1

Petitioner then filed this action, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was stamped

2

“filed” on June 25, 2013. The petition has a proof of service indicating that it was mailed to the

3

Court on June 24, 2013, by someone assisting Petitioner from outside prison. See Docket # 2, p. 63.

4

The prisoner mailbox rule, which deems most documents filed when the prisoner gives them to

5

prison officials to mail to the Court, see Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003),

6

does not apply because the petition was not given to prison officials to mail to the Court. The filing

7

date of June 25, 2013 is the relevant date for purposes of the habeas statute of limitations.

8
9

III.

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

12

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the

13

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application

14

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4 of the

15

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts, a district court may also

16

order the respondent to file another pleading where neither summary dismissal nor service is

17

appropriate.

18

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which became law

19

on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of habeas

20

corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state convictions

21

or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the judgment

22

became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct review; (2)

23

an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such

24

action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the

25

Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to

26

cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered

27

through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly

28

2

1

filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is excluded from the

2

one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

3

The petition in this action was filed more than a year after Petitioner’s conviction became

4

final, and may be untimely under the AEDPA’s one-year limitation period. This apparent

5

procedural problem should be addressed before the Court reaches the merits of the claims raised in

6

the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and Court need not expend resources

7

addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

8

Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts, Respondent must either (1) move to

9

dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the Court that Respondent is of
the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IV.

12

Good cause appearing therefor,

13

1.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition upon

14

Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk

15

shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.

16

2.

Respondent must file with the Court and serve upon Petitioner, on or before

17

September 13, 2013, a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that Respondent is of the opinion

18

that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted.

19
20

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 11, 2013.

21

4.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

Respondent may file and serve a reply on or before October 25, 2013.

///

3

1

5.

The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No

2

hearing will be held on the motion. If Respondent notifies the Court that a motion to dismiss is

3

unwarranted or the motion to dismiss is decided against Respondent, the Court will then determine

4

whether to require an answer to the petition.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: July 17, 2013

9

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

4