Roland Timothy Mills Jr v. P D Brazelton
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than June 8, 2012,Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Failure to timely file a response will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (ca)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROLAND TIMOTHY MILLS, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
WARDEN P.D. BRAZELTON,
14
Respondent.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ED CV 12-725-PA (PJW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On April 27, 2012, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for
17
Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking to challenge his December 2006 state
18
convictions for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base),
19
possession of drug paraphernalia, and being under the influence of a
20
controlled substance.
21
5384722 (Cal. App. Dec. 26, 2008).)
22
the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
23
possession, his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated,
24
and the prosecutor’s misconduct denied him due process and a fair
25
trial.
26
ordered to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed because
27
it is time-barred.
28
(Petition at 2; People v. Mills, 2008 WL
(Petition at 5-6.)
In the Petition, he claims that
For the following reasons, Petitioner is
1
State prisoners seeking to challenge their state convictions in
2
federal habeas corpus proceedings are subject to a one-year statute of
3
limitations.
4
became final on June 23, 2009--90 days after the state supreme court
5
denied his petition for review and the time expired for him to file a
6
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
7
See, e.g., Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.
8
2005).
9
on June 23, 2010.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Here, Petitioner’s conviction
Therefore, the statute of limitations expired one year later,
See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
10
Cir. 2001).
11
April 27, 2012, almost two years after the deadline.
12
Petitioner, however, did not file this Petition until
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than June 8, 2012,
13
Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not
14
be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of
15
limitations.
16
recommendation that this case be dismissed.
17
DATED:
Failure to timely file a response will result in a
May 8, 2012
18
19
20
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\MILLS, R 725\OSC dismiss pet.wpd
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
