Hawkins v. Williams et al

Filing 8

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely. FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of this action to be debatable or wrong. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4
FARRIN HAWKINS,
5
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01421-GMN-PAL

6
vs.

ORDER

7
BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
8
Respondents.
9
10
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

11
12

by a Nevada state prisoner.

13

This Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the

14

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court must dismiss a

15

petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

16

entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also

17

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

Petitioner challenges a 1989 criminal conviction in the Eighth Judicial District Court, in

19

Clark County, Nevada. It appears that the petition was filed outside the AEDPA one-year

20

limitations period, and is subject to dismissal on that basis. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The AEDPA

21

statute of limitations has serious implications for petitioner. According to the petition, petitioner

22

was convicted on July 20, 1989. Petitioner signed his federal habeas petition and dispatched it for

23

mailing on August 20, 2014. The petition was filed well outside the AEDPA one-year limitations

24

period.

25

Additionally, on the face of the federal petition, petitioner states that his grounds for relief

26

were not exhausted in state court. A federal court will not review a state prisoner's petition for

27

habeas relief until the prisoner has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose

28

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A claim remains unexhausted until the

1

petitioner has given the highest available state court the opportunity to consider the claim through

2

direct appeal or state collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir.

3

2004); Garrison v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981). A habeas petitioner must “present

4

the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal court.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

5

270, 276 (1971).

6

By order filed December 8, 2014, petitioner was informed that his petition appeared to be

7

both untimely and unexhausted. (ECF No. 4). Regarding the statute of limitations, petitioner was

8

given an opportunity to demonstrate either that he submitted his federal habeas corpus petition in a

9

timely manner, or that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period imposed

10

by the AEDPA. Regarding exhaustion, petitioner was given an opportunity to demonstrate when

11

and how he exhausted his grounds for relief in state court. Petitioner was informed that his failure

12

to respond to the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 5, at p. 3). See

13

Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has authority to raise statute of

14

limitations sua sponte and dismiss petition on that ground “after the court provides the petitioner

15

with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.”). “For a pro se petitioner . . . the court must

16

make clear the grounds for dismissal and consequences of failing to respond.” Herbst, 260 F.3d at

17

1043. This Court has provided petitioner with notice of the deficiencies of his petition, an

18

opportunity to provide an explanation regarding the untimeliness of his petition and his failure to

19

exhaust state court remedies, and was cautioned that his failure to respond to the Court’s order

20

would result in dismissal of the action. Petitioner failed to respond to the Court’s order, as he has

21

not made any demonstration regarding the untimeliness of his petition or his failure to exhaust the

22

claims in his petition. Accordingly, this action is dismissed.

23
24
25
26

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as reasonable
jurists would not find the dismissal of this action to be debatable or wrong.

27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

28

DATED this 15th day of April, 2015.

-2-

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court