Raymond George Glass v. James Hill, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California orders a state prisoner to show cause why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely under AEDPA. The court concludes that the limitations period expired in 2007 and that the petitioner has not shown delayed accrual, statutory tolling, or equitable tolling. The court also denies without prejudice motions seeking appointment of an inmate assistant and a certificate of appealability, and declines to recharacterize the damages request as a civil rights action.

Holdings

1. The petition appeared untimely because the conviction became final on May 30, 2006, the one-year limitations period expired on May 30, 2007, and the federal petition was not constructively filed until October 7, 2024.
2. Delayed accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) did not apply because the record supplied no basis for a later date on which the factual predicates could have been discovered.
3. Petitioner's later state habeas petitions did not statutorily toll or revive the already-expired AEDPA limitations period.
4. The record disclosed no basis for equitable tolling.
5. The court declined to offer petitioner the option of converting the portion of the petition seeking money damages into a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal habeas petition appeared barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
2. Whether delayed accrual, statutory tolling, or equitable tolling applied to make the petition timely.
3. Whether the court should construe the petition's request for money damages as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether petitioner's motions for assistance and a certificate of appealability should be granted before entry of a final order.

Disposition

other