Luna v. Atchley
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-10003
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Luna v. Atchley, Judge Freeman ordered the respondent to address whether Luna’s federal habeas petition was untimely, without deciding its merits.
Jose Juan Luna, Jr., whose federal petition challenging his state conviction may face a motion to dismiss based on the federal filing deadline; the respondent must address that potential defense.
What happened
Jose Juan Luna, Jr., a California prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his state conviction. He used a form for a different type of petition, so the court treated it as a petition under the law that applies to state prisoners challenging convictions.
The court noted that Luna was sentenced in 2013, the state high court denied review in October 2015, and he filed the federal petition in December 2021. Because federal law generally gives state prisoners one year to file, the court found a clear potential timeliness problem, but did not decide whether the petition was too late.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the respondent to file a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely or notify the court that dismissal is unwarranted. The case will proceed according to further orders; the court did not yet rule on Luna’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Luna v. Atchley · No. 5:21-cv-10003
- Beth Freeman
- May 9, 2022
Background
Jose Juan Luna, Jr., a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition on December 27, 2021, using a form for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court determined from the petition that Luna was serving a state sentence based on a Monterey County Superior Court conviction and was challenging that conviction. The court therefore treated the petition as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the statute applicable to state prisoners challenging state convictions. Luna had paid the filing fee.
According to the petition and attached materials, a jury found Luna guilty of 22 counts of child molestation, and he was sentenced to 79 years in state prison. He unsuccessfully appealed. The opinion states that he did not pursue state collateral review and that no related matters were pending in any court.
Potential Statute-of-Limitations Problem
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act generally requires a state prisoner to file a federal habeas petition within one year of the date the state judgment becomes final, subject to certain alternative starting dates and exclusions. Time during which a properly filed state post-conviction or other collateral-review application is pending generally does not count toward the one-year period.
Luna was sentenced on September 12, 2013. Even assuming he received tolling for the entire period during which his direct appeal was pending, the court noted that he waited more than six years after the state high court denied review on October 14, 2015, before filing the federal petition. The court therefore identified a clear issue as to whether the petition was timely.
The court stated that this procedural issue should be addressed before reaching the merits of Luna’s claims. If the petition is time-barred, the parties and court would not need to spend resources addressing the substantive claims.
Order
The court ordered the respondent either to file a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely or to notify the court that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted. The respondent was given 35 days from the filing date of the order. If a motion is filed, Luna may oppose it within 28 days after receiving it, and the respondent may file a reply within 14 days after receiving the opposition. The motion would be decided without a hearing. If the respondent states that dismissal is unwarranted, or if the motion is denied, the court will then decide whether to require an answer to the petition.
The order did not dismiss the petition, grant or deny habeas relief, or decide the underlying claims. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also directed the clerk to serve the order and reminded Luna to comply with court orders and keep the court and respondent informed of address changes.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.