Reed v. Glebe

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re dismissal of the 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner's Show Cause Response due by 4/24/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. (CMG; cc to Petitioner)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

JESSEY F REED,

9

Petitioner,

10
11

CASE NO. C15-5063 RBL-JRC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
PATRICK GLEBE,

12

Respondent.

13
The District Court referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
14
U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The referral is made
15
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and
16
MJR4.
17
Petitioner is challenging the validity of a 1998 judgment and sentence on a guilty plea
18
(Dkt. 7). Petitioner filed a personal restraint petition in 2013 (Dkt. 7, p. 3). The Washington
19
State Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as time barred under state law (Dkt. 8-3 pp. 2-4).
20
Federal habeas corpus petitions are subject to a statue of limitations under the 1996
21
amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
22
Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides as follows:
23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by
State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is
removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized
by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending
shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the limitation period begins on the date on

12 which the state court judgment became final. In this case that would have been the date of
13 sentencing, January 20, 1998 (Dkt. 7, p. 1). The Court has no documents before it showing that
14 petitioner filed anything that would have tolled the running of the statute of limitations prior to
15 its expiration on January 21. 1999. Thus, petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is untimely.
16

The Court orders petitioner to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed prior

17 to service. Petitioner must file a response to this order on or before April 24, 2015 or the Court
18 will recommend dismissal of this petition. After consideration of petitioner’s response, the Court
19 will take further action.
20

Dated this 13th day of March, 2015.

A

21
22

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2