Alverto v. Obenland

W.D. Washington

Alverto v. Obenland

DecidedMarch 27, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-05212

StatusUnknown

This text of Alverto v. Obenland (Alverto v. Obenland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alverto v. Obenland, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-5212-RBJ-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 12 v. RECORD 13 MIKE OBENLAND, 14 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On March 21, 2019, Petitioner Jerome Ceasar Alverto 17 initiated this action challenging his state court judgment and sentence. See Dkt. 1. After review 18 of the record, the Court directs Respondent to file a second supplemental state court record. 19 On February 27, 2020, the Washington State Supreme Court (“state supreme court”) 20 determined a state personal restraint petition (“PRP”) becomes final under Washington state law 21 when the certificate of finality is issued. Certification from United States Court of Appeals, Ninth 22 Circuit in Phonsavanh Phongmanivan v. Haynes, 458 P.3d 767, 770 (Wash. 2020). 23 24 1 In the Answer, Respondent asserts the Amended Petition is time-barred. Dkt. 22. The 2 statute of limitations period is tolled while a properly filed PRP is pending and the limitations 3 period begins to run again when the PRP becomes final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Pace v. 4 DiGulielmo, 544 U.S. 480, 410 (2005); Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2002).

5 Here, Petitioner filed multiple PRPs in the state court. The record, however, does not appear to 6 contain the certificates of finality for any of Petitioner’s PRPs. See Dkt. 23. As the state supreme 7 court has determined a PRP is final when the certificate of finality is issued, the certificate of 8 finality for each PRP is necessary to calculate the tolling periods in this case. 9 Therefore, the Court directs Respondent to file a second supplemental state court record. 10 The second supplemental state court record should include the certificates of finality for each PRP. 11 Respondent shall also provide a brief explaining which certificate of finality corresponds with each 12 PRP in the state court record. The Court directs Respondent to file the second supplemental state 13 court record and brief on or before May 1, 2020. The Court will not accept any other additional 14 briefing at this time.

15 The Clerk is directed to re-note the Amended Petition (Dkt. 18) for consideration on May 16 1, 2020. 17 Dated this 27th day of March, 2020. 18 A 19 David W. Christel 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-5212-RBJ-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 12 v. RECORD 13 MIKE OBENLAND, 14 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On March 21, 2019, Petitioner Jerome Ceasar Alverto 17 initiated this action challenging his state court judgment and sentence. See Dkt. 1. After review 18 of the record, the Court directs Respondent to file a second supplemental state court record. 19 On February 27, 2020, the Washington State Supreme Court (“state supreme court”) 20 determined a state personal restraint petition (“PRP”) becomes final under Washington state law 21 when the certificate of finality is issued. Certification from United States Court of Appeals, Ninth 22 Circuit in Phonsavanh Phongmanivan v. Haynes, 458 P.3d 767, 770 (Wash. 2020). 23 24 1 In the Answer, Respondent asserts the Amended Petition is time-barred. Dkt. 22. The 2 statute of limitations period is tolled while a properly filed PRP is pending and the limitations 3 period begins to run again when the PRP becomes final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Pace v. 4 DiGulielmo, 544 U.S. 480, 410 (2005); Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2002).

5 Here, Petitioner filed multiple PRPs in the state court. The record, however, does not appear to 6 contain the certificates of finality for any of Petitioner’s PRPs. See Dkt. 23. As the state supreme 7 court has determined a PRP is final when the certificate of finality is issued, the certificate of 8 finality for each PRP is necessary to calculate the tolling periods in this case. 9 Therefore, the Court directs Respondent to file a second supplemental state court record. 10 The second supplemental state court record should include the certificates of finality for each PRP. 11 Respondent shall also provide a brief explaining which certificate of finality corresponds with each 12 PRP in the state court record. The Court directs Respondent to file the second supplemental state 13 court record and brief on or before May 1, 2020. The Court will not accept any other additional 14 briefing at this time.

15 The Clerk is directed to re-note the Amended Petition (Dkt. 18) for consideration on May 16 1, 2020. 17 Dated this 27th day of March, 2020. 18 A 19 David W. Christel 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alverto v. Obenland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alverto-v-obenland-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack