(HC) Miranda v. Schultz

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAVIER MIRANDA, Case No. 2:25-cv-2010-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER JASON SCHULTZ, 15 Respondent.

18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. His petition fails to state an intelligible federal habeas claim, however, and it appears well past the one-year statute of limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). I will dismiss the petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may explain why this action should still proceed.

23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

1 Petitioner was sentenced in 1999, approximately twenty-five years before this petition was | filed. ECF No. 1 at 1. Thus, his petition is untimely under AEDPA’s one-year statute of | limitations. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘AEDPA imposes a | one-year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in federal | court.”). Petitioner offers no argument that any tolling is justified, and, indeed, twenty-five years | of tolling would be extremely difficult to obtain.

7 Additionally, the substance of petitioner’s argument is unintelligible. He appears to argue | that he is a “sovereign redemptionist” who is protected by “sovereign immunity.” ECF No. 1 at | 5. Such arguments are frivolous and unsupported by law.

10 Out of an abundance of caution, I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend before | recommending dismissal of the case. Petitioner may file a new petition that addresses these | deficiencies and explains why, if at all, his claims should proceed.

13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 14 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

15 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an | amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

17 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal || may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be || dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

20 4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order. If | he files an amended complaint, he must use this form.

22 5. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 2, 2025 q——— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE