Huynh v. Lizarraga
Filing
67
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 65 Discovery Motion and Requiring Plaintiff to Show Cause. The Court Orders Huynh to show cause by 6/27/2017, why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Respondent must file any response by 7/11/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 5/31/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Philong Huynh,
12
Case No.: 15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
J. Lizarraga,
15
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
DISCOVERY MOTION [Doc. 65]
AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE
Respondent.
16
17
18
Petitioner Philong Huynh’s motion for discovery and appointed counsel (ECF
No. 65) is DENIED without prejudice because his habeas petition appears untimely.
19
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state prisoner
20
has one year to file a federal habeas petition starting from “the date on which the judgment
21
became final by the conclusion of direct review. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). On
22
October 7, 2014,1 exactly one year after direct review concluded, Huynh timely filed his
23
24
25
26
27
28
Under the prison mailbox rule, a self-represented prisoner’s appeal is considered
“filed at the time [the inmate] delivered it to the prison authorities for forwarding to the
court clerk.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Although it was file-stamped a
week later, Huynh’s petition was mailed or handed to prison officials on October 7, 2014.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 11, Huynh v. Lizarraga, Civil No.
14-cv-2452-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2014), ECF No. 1.
1
1
15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS
1
first petition. See Huynh v. California, 134 S.Ct. 278 (2013) (certiorari petition denied on
2
October 7, 2013); (ECF No. 12-6) (same).
3
The Court ultimately dismissed his case for failure to exhaust state remedies but
4
granted leave to amend until March 6, 2015. Order at 3, Huynh v. Lizarraga, Civil No.
5
14-cv-2452-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015), ECF No. 7. Huynh never filed an
6
amended petition, so that original litigation was terminated on March 6, 2015. Id. at 3.
7
Almost six months after his amendment deadline—on August 31, 20152—Huynh
8
filed this new habeas petition. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) The Court previously warned Huynh that
9
if he failed to amend and instead filed a new petition, the federal limitations period could
10
continue to run. Order at 2-3, Huynh, Civil No. 14-cv-2452-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14,
11
2015), ECF No. 7. Now Huynh is well past the one-year habeas filing period. And “the
12
filing of the second habeas petition, following dismissal without prejudice of the first
13
petition,” does not “relate[] back to the date of the first petition.” Henry v. Lungren, 164
14
F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1999).
15
Although Huynh’s habeas claims appear to be time-barred, it is possible he has a
16
basis to avoid default, such as a state habeas petition that tolled the limitations period.
17
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-
18
conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is
19
pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation. . . .”).
20
Thus, the Court ORDERS Huynh to show cause by June 27, 2017, why his petition
21
should not be dismissed as untimely. Respondent must file any response by July 11, 2017.
22
Dated: May 31, 2017
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Although the new petition was apparently signed on August 24, 2015, and mailed
on August 28, 2015, it does not indicate the date that it was given to prison officials. (ECF
No. 1, at 11-12, 14.) It was filed in our Court on August 31, 2015. (ECF No. 1, at 1.)
2
15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS
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?