Luna v. Atchley

Filing 5

ORDER REQUESTING MOTION TO DISMISS OR NOTICE THAT MOTION IS UNWARRANTED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/9/2022. Dispositive Motion due by 6/13/2022. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSE JUAN LUNA, JR.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Petitioner,

12

v.

13
14

Case No. 21-10003 BLF (PR)
ORDER REQUESTING MOTION
TO DISMISS OR NOTICE THAT
MOTION IS UNWARRANTED

MATTHEW ATCHLEY, Acting
Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

18
19

using the court’s form petition for filing an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No.

20

1. However, based on the information therein, it is clear that Petitioner is serving a state

21

sentence for a conviction out of Monterey County Superior Court and is challenging that

22

state conviction.1 Id. at 1-3. Accordingly, the Court construes the petition as being

23

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is the appropriate statute. Petitioner has paid the

24

filing fee. Id.

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

The matter was reassigned to this Court on January 31, 2022, after Petitioner did not file
consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in the time provided. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4.

BACKGROUND

1
2

According to the petition and the attached papers, Petitioner was found guilty by a

3

jury in Monterey County Superior Court of 22 counts of child molestation. Dkt. No. 1 at

4

10. Petitioner was sentenced to 79 years in state prison. Id.
Petitioner appealed his conviction without success. Id. at 2. Petitioner did not

5
6

pursue collateral review, and there are no matters pending in any court.
Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on December 27, 2021.

7
8

DISCUSSION

9
10

I.

Standard of Review

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

12

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

13

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the
allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently
frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). The court may order the respondent to
file another pleading where neither service nor summary dismissal is appropriate. See
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.
II.

Statute of Limitations
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) became

law on April 24, 1996, and imposed for the first time a statute of limitation on petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging
non-capital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the

27
28

2

1

date on which: (1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the

2

time passed for seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by

3

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing;

4

(3) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was

5

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral

6

review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the

7

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

8

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

9

the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2). The one-year period generally will run from

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“the date on which the judgment became final by conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Petitioner was sentenced on September 12, 2013. Dkt. No. 1 at 11. Even assuming

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Petitioner is entitled to tolling for the entire time that his direct appeal was pending in the
state courts, he waited over six years after the state high court denied review on October
14, 2015, 2 before filing the instant federal habeas action on December 27, 2021. Dkt. No.
1. Accordingly, there is a clear issue of whether the instant petition is timely.
This apparent procedural problem should be addressed before the Court reaches the
merits of the claims raised in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and
court need not expend resources addressing the substantive claims in the petition.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under
Section 2254, Respondent shall either (1) move to dismiss the petition on the ground that it
is untimely, or (2) inform the Court that Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to
dismiss is unwarranted in this case.
///
///

25
26

2

27

This information was obtained from the California Courts website, with a search of
Petitioner’s case on appeal, Case No. H040191, Dkt. No. 1 at 2, which lead to the Supreme
Court Case No. S229124. https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=6

28

3

CONCLUSION

1
2

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

3

1.

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

4

and the Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the

5

following email address: [e-mail]. The petition and any exhibits

6

thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of

7

California. See Dkt. No. 1. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2.

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve upon Petitioner, within thirty-

five (35) days of the date this order is filed, a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, or
a notice that Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted.
3.

If Petitioner wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss, he shall do so by filing

12

an opposition with the Court and serving it upon Respondent within twenty-eight (28)

13

days of his receipt of the motion to dismiss.

14
15
16

4.

Respondent shall file and serve a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt

of Petitioner’s opposition.
5.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

17

No hearing will be held on the motion. If Respondent notifies the Court that a motion to

18

dismiss is unwarranted or the motion is denied, the Court will then determine whether to

19

require an answer to the petition.

20

6.

It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep

21

the Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the

22

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

23

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

24

7.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

25

granted. However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved of

26

his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a

27

motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the

28

4

1

deadlines set by the court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is

2

issued. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than 5 days prior to the

3

deadline sought to be extended.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ___May 9, 2022___________

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

6
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

Order Requesting MTD
PRO-SE\BLF\HC.21\10003Luna_req.mtd

26
27
28

5