2:13-cv-09088
C.D. Cal.Feb 10, 2014Background
- Petitioner Jordan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Central District of California on December 9, 2013 challenging a 1992 Los Angeles County conviction.
- Petitioner contends five grounds for relief, but the petition appears unexhausted based on court review and state-court history.
- Petition alleges suppression of exculpatory evidence and seeks relief based on actual innocence via Schlup gateway.
- Judgment became final on May 23, 1994; the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations began the day after its effective date and expired April 24, 1997.
- Petitioner filed the federal petition more than 16 years after the 1997 deadline, with no clear basis for tolling shown.
- Court orders petitioner to show cause by March 10, 2014 why the action should not be dismissed for untimeliness or, if timely addressed, for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA | Jordan asserts potential tolling grounds may apply. | Petition is untimely absent tolling. | Untimeliness unless tolling proven; no tolling shown. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to salvage timely filing | If extraordinary circumstances existed, tolling might apply. | No evidence of diligent pursuit or extraordinary circumstances. | No equitable tolling shown. |
| Whether actual innocence gateway can salvage an untimely claim | New exculpatory evidence (Piatt confession) renders innocence gateway viable. | Evidence not new; petitioner knew of it long before filing; claim not timely. | Actual innocence gateway not established at this stage; still untimely and unexhausted. |
| Whether petitioner exhausted state remedies | Contentions were presented in state court filings. | No exhaustion; no California Supreme Court filings shown in petition. | Petition contains only unexhausted claims; exhaustion not satisfied. |
| Whether stay-and-abeyance is appropriate for a petition with unexhausted claims | Rhinesstay could pause while exhaustion pursued. | Petition contains solely unexhausted claims; Rhines not applicable. | Rhines/Kelly stay not applicable; petition should be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeler v. United States Dist. Court, 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997) (AEDPA timing framework and tolling principles)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (definition of extraordinary circumstances for tolling)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (U.S. 2013) (actual innocence gateway exception to time bar)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence requires new reliable evidence and probability no reasonable juror would convict)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (exhaustion requirement for federal habeas relief)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (stay-and-abeyance for mixed petitions)
- Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1989) (state-law procedural bar and exhaustion)
- Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (stay-and-abeyance limitations for exhausted petitions)
- James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20 (9th Cir. 1994) (exhaustion standard for habeas petitions)