Reyes v. Selbel

Filing 8

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARTIN TAPIA REYES, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-04190-SI ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6 K. SELBEL, Respondent. 12 13 Martin Tapia Reyes, an inmate at Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California, filed 14 this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is 15 now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 16 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 17 18 19 BACKGROUND The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: Reyes was 20 convicted in 2010 in Santa Cruz County Superior Court of robbery and active participation in a 21 criminal street gang, with sentence enhancements for prior convictions. On appeal, the conviction 22 for active participation in a criminal street gang apparently was vacated. See Docket No. 1-2 at 23 20, 31. After he was resentenced, Reyes appealed again. The California Court of Appeal issued 24 its decision on May 26, 2015, and the California Supreme Court denied Reyes’ petition for review 25 on August 12, 2015. He currently is serving a sentence of 25 years to life, plus 10 years, in prison. 26 Reyes’ federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was stamped “received” at the courthouse 27 on July 19, 2017, and stamped “filed” on July 24, 2017. Docket No. 1 at 1. The petition has a 28 signature date of July 14, 2017, and came to the court in an envelope post-marked July 17, 2017. DISCUSSION 1 2 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 3 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 4 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 5 district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 6 an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 7 appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 8 U.S.C. § 2243. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which became 10 law on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state 12 convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the 13 judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct 14 review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was 15 removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was 16 recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and 17 made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have 18 been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time during 19 which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is 20 excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2). 21 The petition in this action was filed more than a year after petitioner’s conviction became 22 final, and may be untimely under the AEDPA’s one-year limitation period. 23 procedural problem should be addressed before the court reaches the merits of the claims raised in 24 the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and court need not expend resources 25 addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 26 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, respondent must either (1) move to 27 dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the court that respondent is of 28 the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case. 2 This apparent CONCLUSION 1 2 Good cause appearing therefor, 3 1. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition upon respondent and 4 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a 5 copy of this order on petitioner. 6 2. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 10, 2017, 7 a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that respondent is of the opinion that a motion to 8 dismiss is unwarranted. 9 10 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 December 8, 2017. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 4. Respondent may file and serve a reply on or before December 22, 2017. 12 5. The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 13 hearing will be held on the motion. If respondent notifies the court that a motion to dismiss is 14 unwarranted or the motion to dismiss is decided against respondent, the court will then determine 15 whether to require an answer to the petition. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Docket No. 6. 16 6. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: September 1, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?