Paul Hupp v. Warden

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 2, 2021
Docket5:21-cv-01670
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Paul Hupp v. Warden, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:21-cv-1670-RSWL (MAR) Date: November 2, 2021 Title: Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ERICA BUSTOS N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FIRST AMENDED PETITION SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY

On September 23, 2021, Petitioner Paul Hupp (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, constructively filed1 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“section 2254”) challenging his January 30, 2019 conviction. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1. On October 12, 2021, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition. Dkt. 3.

On October 22, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed: a First Amended Petition (“FAP”), Dkt. 6; a Reply to the Court’s October 12, 2021 Minute Order, Dkt. 7; and a “Motion for Extension of Time to File for 90 days to exhaust State Habeas Corpus Action” (“Motion”) requesting a “90- day stay of this case” while Petitioner exhausts his ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claim in the California Supreme Court. Dkt. 9. However, the Petition also appears untimely, and thus Petitioner’s Motion, and any potential stay, could be moot.

In fact, in his Reply to the Court’s October 12, 2021 Minute Order Petitioner appears to acknowledge that the instant Petition was not timely filed.2 Dkt. 7 at 2 (“Petition by [Petitioner] was not timely because [Petitioner] was in custody of Riverside County on 9-15-2021 when Petition was due. [Petitioner] mailed in Petition at earliest possible point[.]”). However, he also asks this Court to toll “the deadline as a result.” Id.

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 AEDPA “sets a one-year limitations period in which a state prisoner must file a federal habeas corpus petition.” Thompson v. Lea, 681 F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. 2012). Ordinarily, the limitations period runs from the date on which the prisoner’s judgment of conviction “became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). “When, on direct appeal, review is sought in the state’s highest court but no petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is filed, direct review is considered to be final when the certiorari petition would have been due, which is ninety days after the decision of the state’s highest court.” Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958–59 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:21-cv-1670-RSWL (MAR) Date: November 2, 2021 Title: Accordingly, the Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed as untimely and will give Petitioner an opportunity to address the grounds entitling him to tolling3 here.

Thus, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to respond to this Order to Show Cause within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, by November 23, 2021, addressing:

(1) the timeliness of the instant Petition—including any grounds entitling him to tolling; and (2) the time period(s) when the statute of limitations should be tolled here.

The Court further instructs the Clerk of Court to serve the First Amended Petition on the California Attorney General. The assigned Deputy Attorney General will be required to file a notice of appearance within fourteen (14) days. However, no response from the Attorney General will be required until further notice from the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer eb

3 “A habeas petitioner is entitled to statutory tolling of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations while a ‘properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.’ ” Nedds v. Calderon, 678 F.3d 777, 780 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). The gaps in between different “rounds” of review may be tolled if (1) subsequent petitions were “limited to an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in the first petition” and (2) the subsequent petitions “were ultimately denied on the merits.” King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

In addition to the statutory tolling provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the “AEDPA limitations period may be tolled” when it is “equitably required.” Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011). The “threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling [under AEDPA] is very high.” Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original). A court may grant equitable tolling only where “‘extraordinary circumstances’ prevented an otherwise diligent petitioner from filing on time.” Forbess v. Franke, 749 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). The petitioner “bears a heavy burden to show that [he] is entitled to equitable tolling, ‘lest the exceptions swallow the rule.’ ” Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2015). □□□□□□□□□□ L) C 4 wn CG? CTEAL □□□□□□□ OF □□□□□□□□ NAME —~—O [L627 _S. Hatta ST, PRISON IDENTIFICATION/BOOKING NO. DAN CA 92010 ADDRESS OR PLACE OF CONFINEMENT

Note: It is your responsibility to notify the Clerk of Court in writing of any change of address. If represented by an attorney, provide his or her name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER: \ 5 cv 2Z)1-CV-/626 -@Suc- MAL | A U L |W \ L To be supplied by the Clerk of the United States District Court FULL NAME (Include name under which you were convicted ) Petitioner, v. AMENDED ‘4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Koes Bo Woe Cr) A G BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY 28 U.S.C. § 2254 NAME OF WARDEN, SUPERINTENDENT, JAILOR, OR AUTHORIZED PERSON HAVING CUSTODY OF PETITIONER . □□ Respondent. }| PLACE/COUNTY OF CONVICTION ¢ Zz Uy (STE CO PREVIOUSLY FILED, RELATED CASES IN THIS DISTRICT COURT (List by case number ) CV CV INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY 1. To use this form, you must be a person who either is currently serving a sentence under a judgment against you in a California state court, or will be serving a sentence in the future under a judgment against you in a California state court. You are asking for relief from the conviction and/or the sentence. This form is your petition for relief. 2. In this petition, you may challenge the judgment entered by only one California state court.

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

Related

Porter v. Ollison
620 F.3d 952 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Bills v. Clark
628 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Roberts v. Marshall
627 F.3d 768 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Doe v. Busby
661 F.3d 1001 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Larry Donnell King v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden
340 F.3d 821 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Nedds v. Calderon
678 F.3d 777 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Kenny Thompson v. Melissa Lea
681 F.3d 1093 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Steven Forbess v. Steve Franke
749 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Rudin v. Myles
781 F.3d 1043 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paul Hupp v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-hupp-v-warden-cacd-2021.