Clark v. Uttecht

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 Antaeus Laurent Clark, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05054-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 Jeffrey A Uttecht 14 Respondent.

15 16 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 17 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On January 19, 2020, Petitioner Antaeus Laurent Clark 18 initiated this action challenging his state court conviction and sentence. See Dkt. 1, 3. The Court 19 has reviewed the Petition and Respondent’s Answer. See Dkt. 3, 11, 12. There are two issues on 20 which the Court seeks additional briefing before entering a report and recommendation on the 21 Petition. 22 First, Petitioner signed and filed the Original Petition on January 19, 2020. See Dkt. 1, 3. 23 Under the prison “mailbox rule,” a petition is deemed filed for purposes of the statute of 24 limitations for the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) the moment it is 1 delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the clerk of the district court. See Patterson v. 2 Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the Amended Petition states that it 3 was signed and delivered to the prison authorities for filing on November 26, 2019, but the 4 Amended Petition was not filed with the Court until March 8, 2020. See Dkt. 5. Petitioner is

5 directed to show cause and provide an explanation of the date discrepancy between the Original 6 Petition and Amended Petition and explain to the Court why it should not use the date the 7 Original Petition was filed as the date the case was initiated. 8 Second, Petitioner was originally sentenced in state court in November 2017, but the 9 superior court amended the judgment and sentence in December 2017. Dkt. 12, Exhibit 6. In the 10 Answer, Respondent contends the Amended Petition is barred by the one-year statute of 11 limitations. Dkt. 11. Respondent, however, does not address the discrepancy between the dates of 12 the Original Petition and Amended Petition or whether Petitioner’s amended judgment and 13 sentence affect the statute of limitations analysis. See Dkt. 1, 3, 11, 12 at Exhibit 6. 14 For the Court to properly consider the statute of limitations as related to the grounds

15 raised in the Amended Petition, the Court orders the following: 16 • Petitioner is directed to show cause on or before July 17, 2020 and provide an 17 explanation of the date discrepancy between the Original Petition and Amended Petition 18 and explain to the Court why it should not use the date the Original Petition was filed as 19 the date the case was initiated. 20 • Respondent is directed to file, on or before July 31, 2020, a supplemental answer 21 addressing whether the statute of limitations began anew when the amended judgment and 22 sentence was entered on December 8, 2017 and may also provide additional briefing as to 23 the date the case was initiated in reply to Petitioner’s response to the Court’s order.

24 1 • Petitioner may file a response to the supplemental answer addressing only the arguments 2 raised by Respondent in the supplemental answer on or before August 14, 2020. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition and all pending motions (Dkt. 9) for 4 consideration for August 14, 2020.

5 6 Dated this 24th day of June, 2020. 7 A 8 David W. Christel 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24