1

2

3

4

5

6

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

8 ELI CHARFAUROS QUINTANILLA, CIVIL CASE NO. 22-00012 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. ORDER 11 HONORABLE JUDGE ELYZE M. IRIARTE; 12 ATTORNEY JAY ARRIOLA; and ATTORNEY GENERAL, 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court is Plaintiff Eli Charfauros Quintanilla’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus. ECF No 3. For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the Petition. 17 I. Discussion 18 On May 11, 2022, Quintanilla filed an Affidavit of Indigency and Request for Counsel 19 addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 1. On May 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge 20 Bordallo informed Quintanilla that he must either file a petition of habeas corpus with this court 21 on a court approved form, or must appeal his convicted to the Supreme Court of Guam. ECF No. 22 2. On June 6, 2022, Quintanilla filed the instant Petition related to Superior Court of Guam case 23 number CF0544-17. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 3. 24 Page 2 of 2 ] Section 2244(d)(1) contains a one-year statute of limitations which requires a state 2 || prisoner seeking relief under § 2254 to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the latest of the 3 || four following dates: 4 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or 5 the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 6 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in 7 violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was 8 prevented from filing by such State action; 9 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the 10 Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 11 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or 12 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have 13 been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 14 |]

(d)(1). 15 Here, Superior Court of Guam case number CF0544-17 is expunged. Courts deny habeas 16 || petitions as moot when records have been expunged. Porter v. Salazar,

, at *2 17 || (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016); see also Khranyan vy. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,

, at *2 18 Cal. Feb. 6, 2014). Thus, the court finds that Quintanilla’s Petition is MOOT. 19 I. Conclusion 20 For the aforementioned reasons, the court DENIES the Petition as MOOT. 21 SO ORDERED. 22 /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood nae. Chief Judge 23 ae □ & Dated: Sep 12, 2022 24