Williams v. Davis

Filing 5

ORDER on Initial Review. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DE’MIAN A. WILLIAMS,

9

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-0047 EMC (pr)

R. DAVIS, Warden,

12

Respondent.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at the Valley 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
21

II.

BACKGROUND

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: Petitioner pled no

22

contest and was convicted in Napa County Superior Court of “transportation/sale of controlled

23

substance” with sentence enhancements for prior convictions and prior prison terms. See Docket #

24

1 at 12. On August 19, 2010, he was sentenced to sixteen years in state prison. He states that he did

25

not appeal, but did file several habeas petitions in state court in 2011 and 2013.

26
27
28

Petitioner then filed this action, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The petition has no proof of
service but does have a verification dated December 11, 2013. The petition came to the Court in an

1

envelope postmarked December 20, 2013, was stamped “received” on December 24, 2013, and was

2

stamped “filed” on January 3, 2014.

3
4

III.

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

6

United States District Court

5

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

12

appropriate.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the Court that Respondent is of

4

the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.

5

IV.

6

Good cause appearing therefor,

7

1.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition upon Respondent and

8

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a

9

copy of this order on Petitioner.
2.

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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

May 30, 2014, a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that Respondent is of the opinion that a

12

motion to dismiss is unwarranted.

13
14

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 June 27, 2014.

15

4.

Respondent may file and serve a reply on or before July 14, 2014.

16

5.

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

17

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

18

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

19

whether to require an answer to the petition.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: March 21, 2014

24

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3