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)

Download PDF
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

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?