(HC) Valencia v. Tuggle

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02994
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAURILIO SILVA VALENCIA, No. 2:24-cv-2994 CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSEPH TUGGLE,1 15 Respondent. 16

17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The pending motion to dismiss claims that 18 on February 15, 2022, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District “vacated 19 the true findings on the enhancements and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.” (ECF No. 20 10, citing ECF No. 9-2.) However, the California Court of Appeal 21 vacated two of the five-year enhancement terms imposed under 22 section 667, subdivision (a), directed the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and affirmed the judgment as 23 modified. 24 (ECF No. 9-2 at 7-8.) In its original judgment, the trial court had imposed four separate five-year 25 enhancement terms. (ECF No. 9-1.) The respondent lodged a copy of the December 12, 2019 26 abstract of judgment (id.), but did not provide a copy of an amended abstract of judgment, and did 27 1 The Warden of Folsom State Prison, Joseph Tuggle, is substituted as respondent in this matter. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); see Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 | not address the implications, if any, of the amended abstract of judgment on the calculation of the 2 || statute of limitations period. Therefore, respondent is directed to lodge the amended abstract of 3 || judgment entered in response to the order of the California Court of Appeal and brief the 4 || implications of the amended judgment, if any. Petitioner is provided an opportunity to file a 5 || response. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, respondent shall lodge with this 8 | Court the amended abstract of judgment entered in response to the state appellate court’s 9 || February 15, 2022 order (ECF No. 9-2), and shall file a brief addressing the implications, if any, 10 | on the calculation of the statute of limitations period. 11 2. Twenty-one days after respondent files his brief, petitioner may file a response. 12 13 14 || Dated: May 15, 2025 4 aA i Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 || /1Wwale2994.fb 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28