Jackson v. Arnold

Filing 7

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on March 30, 2016. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MICHAEL JACKSON,

13

Plaintiff,

14

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT
TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

15

Case No. 16-CV-00234-LHK

ERIC ARNOLD,

16

Re: Dkt. No. 1
Defendant.

17
18

Petitioner Michael Jackson, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 13, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the Court issues an

20

order directing Respondent Eric Arnold to file a motion to dismiss.

21

I. BACKGROUND

22

In 1983, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of

23

attempted first degree murder, and four counts of kidnapping. Petitioner was sentenced to two

24

consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal

25

upheld Petitioner’s conviction on December 18, 1985. The California Supreme Court denied

26

review of Petitioner’s convictions on June 30, 1986, and the United States Supreme Court

27

subsequently denied certiorari. Petitioner then filed a petition in federal court for a writ of habeas

28

1
Case No. 16-CV-00234-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

corpus, which was denied on August 22, 1988.
On June 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Alameda County Superior

3

Court, raising a 14th Amendment claim that was not part of Petitioner’s previous appeals and

4

federal habeas petition. The Alameda County Superior Court denied Petitioner’s state habeas

5

petition on December 13, 2013. On April 16, 2014, Petitioner filed an identical state habeas

6

petition with the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on April 17, 2014. On September

7

24, 2014, Petitioner filed an identical state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court,

8

which was denied on January 14, 2015.

9

On January 13, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which
raises the same 14th Amendment issues as Plaintiff’s 2012-2015 state habeas petitions.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II. DISCUSSION

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

District courts are permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte, the timeliness of a

23

state prisoner’s habeas petition. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). Once a petitioner

24

is notified that his petition is subject to dismissal based on AEDPA’s statute of limitations and the

25

record indicates that the petition falls outside the one-year time period, the petitioner bears the

26

burden of demonstrating that the limitation period was sufficiently tolled under statutory and/or

27

equitable principles. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir. 2002).

28

2
Case No. 16-CV-00234-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS

1

Based on the record before the Court, Respondent is directed to file a motion to dismiss on

2

procedural grounds, or notify the Court that it does not believe such a motion is warranted.

3

III. CONCLUSION

4

Respondent is directed to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within sixty (60)

5

days of the filing date of this order, or notify the Court that it does not believe such a motion is

6

warranted. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file a response within twenty-

7

eight (28) days of Respondent’s motion. Respondent shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days

8

thereafter.
The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the Respondent

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: March 30, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 16-CV-00234-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS