(HC) Miranda v. Schultz

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02010
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER MIRANDA, Case No. 2:25-cv-2010-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JASON SCHULTZ, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. His petition 19 fails to state an intelligible federal habeas claim, however, and it appears well past the one-year 20 statute of limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). I will 21 dismiss the petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may explain why this action should still 22 proceed. 23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 27 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 Petitioner was sentenced in 1999, approximately twenty-five years before this petition was 2 | filed. ECF No. 1 at 1. Thus, his petition is untimely under AEDPA’s one-year statute of 3 | limitations. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘AEDPA imposes a 4 | one-year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in federal 5 | court.”). Petitioner offers no argument that any tolling is justified, and, indeed, twenty-five years 6 | of tolling would be extremely difficult to obtain. 7 Additionally, the substance of petitioner’s argument is unintelligible. He appears to argue 8 | that he is a “sovereign redemptionist” who is protected by “sovereign immunity.” ECF No. 1 at 9 | 5. Such arguments are frivolous and unsupported by law. 10 Out of an abundance of caution, I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend before 11 | recommending dismissal of the case. Petitioner may file a new petition that addresses these 12 | deficiencies and explains why, if at all, his claims should proceed. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 14 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 15 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an 16 | amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 17 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal 18 || may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be 19 || dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 20 4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order. If 21 | he files an amended complaint, he must use this form. 22 5. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 2, 2025 q——— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE