1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ROBERT WHITE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00089-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 Pro se Petitioner Robert White filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

(“Petition”), and following the Court’s initial review of the Petition, White 14 was ordered to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as 15 untimely. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) White timely complied. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons 16 discussed below, the Court dismisses the Petition with prejudice as untimely. 17 I. BACKGROUND1 18 White challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Second Judicial 19 District Court for Washoe County (“state court”). On October 1, 1999, the state court 20 entered a judgment of conviction, convicting White of second-degree murder. White was 21 sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 10 years. White did not appeal 22 his judgment of conviction. On June 11, 2024, White filed a state habeas petition. The 23 state court denied the petition, White appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed 24 on January 31, 2025. See White v. State, No. 88990-COA,

, *1 (Nev. 25 App. Jan. 31, 2025). White is currently on parole. 26 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Second Judicial 27 District Court and Nevada appellate courts. These docket records may be accessed at: 1 On February 14, 2025, White filed his Petition, asserting that the Department of 2 Parole and Probation did not make its sentencing recommendation on a standard set 3 forth in any regulation in compliance with its statutory mandate, resulting in inaccurate 4 and subjective content being considered by his sentencing judge in violation of his due 5 process rights. (ECF No. 1.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) establishes a one- 8 year period of limitations for state prisoners to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to 9

. The one-year limitation period (365 days) begins to run from the latest 10 of 4 possible triggering dates, with the most common being the date on which the 11 petitioner’s judgment of conviction became final by either the conclusion of direct 12 appellate review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2244(d)(1)(A). The federal limitations period is tolled while “a properly filed application 14 for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment 15 or claim is pending.” Id. at § 2244(d)(2). But no statutory tolling is allowed for the period 16 between finality of a direct appeal and the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief in 17 state court because no state court proceeding is pending during that time. See Nino v. 18 Galaza,

(9th Cir. 1999); Rasberry v. Garcia,

, 1153 19 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 Because White did not file a direct appeal to the Nevada appellate courts 21 challenging his judgment of conviction, his conviction became final on the date in which 22 the time for seeking direct review expired: November 1, 1999. See NEV. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1) 23 (requiring a notice of appeal to “be filed with the district court clerk within 30 days after 24 the entry of the judgment or order being appealed”); Gonzalez v. Thaler,

, 25 137 (2012) (stating that when a state prisoner “does not seek review in a State’s highest 26 court, the judgment becomes ‘final’ on the date that the time for seeking such review 27 expires”). The federal statute of limitations thus began to run the following day on 1 November 2, 2000. Although White filed a state habeas petition on June 11, 2024, it was 2 filed after the AEDPA clock had already expired. As such, White’s state habeas petition 3 could not have tolled an already expired limitations period. See Jiminez v. Rice,

478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, White filed his Petition more than 24 years after the 5 AEDPA limitation period expired. 6 In his response to the order to show cause, White contends that his one-year 7 limitations period began running on a later date. (ECF No. 11.) Specifically, White argues 8 that the “essential facts and information were not previously available to him” until the 9 Nevada Court of Appeals decided Vasquez v. State.2 (Id. at 1.) White fails to demonstrate 10 that delayed accrual—even if deemed appropriate under

(d)(1)(B), (C), 11 or (D), which the Court does not find—would affect the timeliness of his Petition given 12 that (1) the operative start date of his AEDPA limitations period would be the date 13 Vasquez was decided, (2) Vasquez was decided in 2020, and (3) White did not seek 14 habeas relief within a year of Vasquez being decided. See Dodd v. United States, 545

, 360 (2005) (concluding that, under the similar provision in

(f), 16 the one-year limitations period started running on the date in which the Court initially 17 recognized the right asserted). As such, the Court finds that White’s Petition is untimely 18 and dismisses it with prejudice. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 It is therefore ordered that the Petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice 21 as untimely. 22 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason 23 would not find dismissal of the Petition for the reasons stated herein to be debatable 24 or wrong. 25 26 2In Vasquez v. State, the Nevada Court of Appeals remanded the case to the 27 district court, concluding that it “abused its discretion by sentencing Vasquez without due 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. 2 || Ford as counsel for Respondents,? informally serve the Nevada Attorney General with 3 || the Petition (ECF No. 1), this Order, and all other filings in this matter by sending notices 4 || of electronic filing to the Nevada Attorney General's office, enter final judgment, 5 || dismissing this action with prejudice, and close this case. 6 DATED THIS 11* Day of April 2025.

8 MIRANDAM.DU 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ———____ 28 *No response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court.