Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 14, 2023

Blandon-Villagra v. Alameda County Superior Court

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:22-cv-03434
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
HabeasCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Blandon-Villagra v. Macomber, Judge Orrick dismissed the untimely federal petition and granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

Jarol J. Blandon-Villagra’s federal challenge to his California state convictions was dismissed as untimely; Jeff Macomber obtained dismissal, and Gregory J. Ahern was terminated as a respondent.

What happened

In Blandon-Villagra v. Macomber, Jarol J. Blandon-Villagra sought federal relief from his California state convictions. He had pleaded no contest to two robbery counts, admitted using a firearm, and received a nine-year sentence.

The court found that the convictions became final on March 4, 2019, giving Blandon-Villagra until March 5, 2020, to file a timely federal petition. He filed his petition in 2022, did not seek state post-conviction relief, and did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

Judge Orrick granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition as untimely. The court found no basis for statutory or equitable extension of the filing deadline, denied a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Blandon-Villagra v. Alameda County Superior Court · No. 3:22-cv-03434
Judge
William Orrick
Date
July 14, 2023

Background

Jarol J. Blandon-Villagra sought federal relief from California state convictions. In 2018, he pleaded no contest in Alameda County Superior Court to two counts of second-degree robbery and admitted an allegation that he personally used a firearm. The state court imposed a nine-year prison sentence on January 2, 2019. Blandon-Villagra did not appeal and did not seek state post-conviction or other collateral relief.

Because he did not appeal, the district court determined that his convictions became final on March 4, 2019. Under the federal one-year deadline for these petitions, he had until March 5, 2020, to file. He filed the pending petition in 2022. After the court issued an order requiring a response explaining why the case should proceed, Jeff Macomber filed a motion to dismiss. Blandon-Villagra did not respond.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the federal one-year limitations period for petitions challenging state convictions. It concluded that the petition was filed after the March 5, 2020 deadline.

The court found no statutory extension of the deadline because Blandon-Villagra had not filed any state petition for collateral relief. It also found that he had not shown entitlement to equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline when a petitioner acted diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. Because Blandon-Villagra did not respond to the motion, he did not claim or support a showing of diligence and an extraordinary circumstance.

Disposition

The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and dismissed the petition. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue. The Clerk was directed to identify Jeff Macomber as the sole proper respondent, terminate Gregory J. Ahern as a respondent, terminate all pending motions, enter judgment for the respondent, and close the file.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.