You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case Saul Cervantes v. M D Biter. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:13-cv-04880-R-RZ Document 4 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:76

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAUL CERVANTES,

vs.

M.D. BITER, Warden,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-4880 R (RZ)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
UNTIMELINESS

The Court issues this Order To Show Cause directed to Petitioner because the

face of the petition suggests that the action may be time-barred.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”), a portion of which established a one-year statute of limitations for bringing
a habeas corpus petition in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In most cases, the
limitations period commences on the date a petitioner’s conviction became final. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period will start instead on one of the following dates,
whichever is latest, if any of them falls after the petitioner’s conviction becomes final: the
date on which a State-created impediment – itself a violation of Constitutional law – was
removed; the date on which a newly-recognized Constitutional right was established; or
the date on which the factual predicate for the claims could have been discovered through
the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Case 2:13-cv-04880-R-RZ Document 4 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:77

The time spent in state court pursuing collateral relief in a timely manner is
excluded, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and the statute also is subject to equitable tolling.
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (2010).

Petitioner indicates that he signed the current petition on June 26, 2012. From
the face of the petition and from judicially-noticeable materials, the Court discerns as
follows:
(a)

In May of 2003, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of
multiple crimes, including three attempted murders. He was sentenced to 56 years
to life in prison. See Pet. ¶ 2.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and on March 2, 2005, the California
Supreme Court denied further direct review. Pet. ¶¶ 3-4. Petitioner does not appear
to have sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. His conviction
therefore became final on June 1, 2005, after the high court’s 90-day deadline for
seeking certiorari expired. See SUP. CT. R. 13.1. His one-year limitations period
began to run on that date.
Over eight years passed after the California Supreme Court’s denial of further direct
review. On March 20, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in that court and filed
another on April 11. The court denied both petitions on May 22. See dockets in
In re Cervantes, Nos. S209466 and S209953 (Cal. Supreme Ct.).

(b)

(c)

(d) Over a month after these final two state-court denials, Petitioner signed the current

petition.

* * * * *

Unless this Court has miscalculated the limitations period, or some form of
additional tolling applies in sufficient measure, this action is time-barred. It became stale
after June 1, 2006, one year after his conviction became final. Petitioner’s commencement
of state habeas proceedings thereafter cannot rejuvenate his stale claims. See Green v.
White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000).

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:13-cv-04880-R-RZ Document 4 Filed 07/11/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:78

This Court may raise sua sponte the question of the statute of limitations bar,
so long as it gives Petitioner an opportunity to be heard on the matter. Herbst v. Cook, 260
F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Petitioner shall show cause in writing why this
action should not be dismissed as being barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Petitioner shall file his response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause not later than 30 days
from the filing date of this Order.

If Petitioner does not file a response within the time allowed, the action may

be dismissed for failure to timely file, and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

7/11/13


RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-