Groh v. Sherman

Filing 10

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW: Re 9 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rodney Jay Groh. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/4/2016. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
RODNEY JAY GROH,

12

Case No. 16-cv-00896-LB

Petitioner,
13
v.

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

14
STU SHERMAN,

15

[Re: ECF No. 9 ]

Respondent.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Rodney Jay Groh, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in

19
20

Corcoran, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He

21

has consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4.)1 His petition is now before the

22

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

23

Cases in the United States District Courts. This order sets a briefing schedule for a motion to

24

dismiss due to the apparent untimeliness of the petition.

25
26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the tops of the documents.

STATEMENT

1
2

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: Rodney Jay Groh was

3

convicted in Humboldt County Superior Court of second degree murder. On April 8, 2009, he was

4

sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He appealed. According to docket sheets on the California

5

court website, Mr. Groh’s conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on March 9,

6

2011, with a modification to the opinion made on March 25, 2011; his petition for review was

7

denied by the California Supreme Court on June 22, 2011. Mr. Groh also filed a petition for writ

8

of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court in 2015.
Mr. Groh then filed this action. His original petition had a proof of service showing it was

10

mailed on February 14, 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 18.) The envelope containing the original petition has

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

a February 16, 2016 postmark. (ECF No. 1-1.) The petition was stamped “filed” at the court on

12

February 23, 2016.
DISCUSSION

13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts, a district

21

court also may order the respondent to file another motion or response where neither summary

22

dismissal nor service is appropriate.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct

28

review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was
2

1

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was

2

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

3

made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have

4

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

5

which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is

6

excluded from the one-year time limit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

7

The petition in this action was filed more than a year after petitioner’s conviction became final
and the statute of limitations began, and therefore may be untimely under the AEDPA’s one-year

9

limitation period. This apparent procedural problem should be addressed before the court reaches

10

the merits of the claims raised in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

need not expend resources addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4

12

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts, the respondent

13

must either (1) move to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the

14

court that the respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.
CONCLUSION

15
16

Good cause appearing therefor,

17

1. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition, and the “consent or declination to

18

magistrate judge jurisdiction” form upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the

19

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the

20

petitioner.

21

2. The respondent must file with the court and serve upon petitioner, on or before

22

June 10, 2016, a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that the respondent is of the opinion

23

that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted.

24
25

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 the respondent on or before July 8, 2016.

26

4. The respondent must file and serve his reply, if any, on or before July 22, 2016.

27

5. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep

28

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely
3

1
2
3

fashion.
6. The petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this
case on the first page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: April 4, 2016

6

__________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

RODNEY JAY GROH,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00896-LB

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

STU SHERMAN,
Defendant.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16

That on April 4, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

17
18
19

Rodney Jay Groh ID: G-56032
CSATF State Prison at Corcoran E-4-145 L
PO Box 5242
Corcoran, CA 93212

20
21

22
23
24
25

Dated: April 4, 2016

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
By:________________________
Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable LAUREL BEELER

26
27
28
5