Robert Medina v. George Ingle Attorney General of the State of California

26 F.3d 131 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert MEDINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George INGLE; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-55784. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 2, 1994. * Decided May 24, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 The State made a prima facie showing it has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to Medina's habeas petition because of his delay in filing the petition. Medina learned of the alleged new evidence in August of 1980, but failed to raise the issue until 1992. A transcript of his criminal trial was not prepared because he escaped custody before taking a direct appeal, and the court reporter's notes were destroyed in 1986 pursuant to state law. Thus, Medina's delay has prejudiced the State in its ability to show (1) that Pong did not commit perjury and (2) that the alleged…