Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lash v. Attorney General

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 20, 2013

SHAWN ALLAN LASH, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Idaho, LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

CANDY W. DALE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shawn Allan Lash's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 3). Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal. (Dkt. 12). Petitioner has filed a response to the Motion (Dkt. 15), and Respondent has filed a reply (Dkt. 17).[1] The Court takes judicial notice of the records from Petitioner's state court proceedings, lodged by Respondent on July 1, 2013, and August 14, 2013. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006).

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 11.) Having carefully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, the Court will decide this matter on the written motions, briefs and record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting the Motion and dismissing this case with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen in violation of Idaho Code § 18-1508, and three counts of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, in violation of Idaho 18-1508A(1)(a), in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County, Idaho. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions on September 17, 2009. (State's Lodging B-4.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court, and the court of appeals issued the remittitur on October 14, 2009. (State's Lodging B-5.)

Petitioner filed a petition for state postconviction relief, at the earliest, on March 26, 2010.[2] (State's Lodging C-1 at 5.) The state district court granted the state's motion for summary dismissal on July 23, 2010. ( Id. at 81-86.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review. (State's Lodging D-8, D-12.) The final remittitur was issued on January 11, 2012. (State's Lodging D-13.)

Petitioner filed his federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at the earliest, on September 21, 2012.

DISCUSSION

Respondent contends that Petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and are procedurally defaulted. The Court need not address Respondent's procedural default argument. The Petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had already run. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Because Petitioner is entitled only to limited statutory tolling and is not entitled to equitable tolling, the Petition will be dismissed as untimely.

1. Standard of Law for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus or claims contained in the petition when "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." In such a case, the Court construes the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner.

2. Statute of Limitations

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted April 24, 1996, established a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides that the statute limitations period is triggered by one of four events:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.