Johnson v. Yates

3 Citing cases

  1. Diaz v. Campbell

    No. C 06-6370 RMW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008)

    See, e.g., Livermore v. Watson, 2008 WL 802330, * 4 (E.D. Cal. March 26, 2008) (finding 78-day delay unreasonable);Hunt v. Felker, 2008 WL 364995, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding 70-day delay unreasonable); Young v. Hickman, 2008 WL 361011, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding 95-day delay unreasonable); Bridges v. Runnels, 2007 WL 2695177, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2007) (finding 76-day delay unreasonable); Johnson v. Yates, 2007 WL 1750231, *1 (N.D.Cal. June 15, 2007) (finding 3-month delay unreasonable); Dorthick v. Hamlet, 2007 WL 1430041, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007) (finding 97-day and 174-day delays unreasonable); Forrister v. Woodford, 2007 WL 809991, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2007) (finding 88-day delay unreasonable). Under the rationale ofEvans, petitioner's 123-day unexplained, and hence unjustified, delay between his superior court denial and the filing of his state petition in California Court of Appeal must be found to be unreasonable.

  2. Muhammad v. Adams

    No. C 07-3627 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 5) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2008)

    ssed the applicability of Chavis to a period of delay of less than ten months, see Gaston v. Palmer, 447 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding no statutory tolling for unexplained periods of delay of 10, 15, and 18 months between filings of California habeas petitions), numerous district courts have found filing delays unreasonable where such delays were similar or shorter in length than the delay herein, and no adequate justification was provided, see, e.g., Culver v. Director of Corrections, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1140-41 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (finding 97-day and 71-day delays unreasonable); Livermore v. Watson, 2008 WL 802330, *4 (E.D. Cal. March 26, 2008) (finding 78-day delay unreasonable); Hunt v. Felker, 2008 WL 364995, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding 70-day delay unreasonable);Young v. Hickman, 2008 WL 361011, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding 95-day delay unreasonable); Bridges v. Runnels, 2007 WL 2695177, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2007) (finding 76-day delay unreasonable); Johnson v. Yates, 2007 WL 1750231, *1 (N.D.Cal. June 15, 2007) (finding 3-month delay unreasonable); Dorthick v. Hamlet, 2007 WL 1430041, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007) (finding 97-day and 174-day delays unreasonable); Forrister v. Woodford, 2007 WL 809991, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2007) (finding 88-day delay unreasonable); cf. White v. Ollison, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1082 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2007) (finding 76-day delay reasonable where adequate justification shown); Byrnes v. Folsom State Prison Warden, 2006 WL 3028418, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006) (finding 88-day delay reasonable where adequate justification shown). Relying on Justice Stevens's concurring opinion in Chavis, petitioner argues the delay herein was not unreasonable. InChavis, Justice Stevens proposed that, rather than having the federal courts determine whether a state habeas petition denied without explanation was untimely, a presumption should be adopted that "if a California court issues an unexplained order denying a petition filed after a delay of less than six months, th

  3. WU v. CURRY

    No. C 07-1438 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2008)

    havis to a period of delay of less than ten months, see Gaston v. Palmer, 447 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding no statutory tolling for unexplained periods of delay of 10, 15 and 18 months between filings of California habeas petitions), numerous district courts have found unjustified filing delays unreasonable where such delays were similar or shorter in length than the delay herein, see, e.g., Culver v. Director of Corrections, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1140-41 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (finding unjustified 97-day and 71-day delays unreasonable); Livermore v. Watson, 2008 WL 802330, *4 (E.D. Cal. March 26, 2008) (finding unjustified 78-day delay unreasonable);Hunt v. Felker, 2008 WL 364995, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding unjustified 70-day delay unreasonable); Young v. Hickman, 2008 WL 361011, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (finding unjustified 95-day delay unreasonable); Bridges v. Runnels, 2007 WL 2695177, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2007) (finding unjustified 76-day delay unreasonable); Johnson v. Yates, 2007 WL 1750231, *1 (N.D.Cal. June 15, 2007) (finding unjustified 3-month delay unreasonable); Dorthick v. Hamlet, 2007 WL 1430041, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007) (finding unjustified 97-day and 174-day delays unreasonable); Forrister v. Woodford, 2007 WL 809991, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2007) (finding unjustified 88-day delay unreasonable); cf. White v. Ollison, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1082 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2007) (finding justified 76-day delay reasonable); Byrnes v. Folsom State Prison Warden, 2006 WL 3028418, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006) (finding justified 88-day delay reasonable).