(HC) Kimble v. People of the State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY CUNNINGHAM KIMBLE, No. 2:17-cv-1233 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner has responded to the order to show cause why his petition, which seeks to challenge his 2011 conviction on four grounds, should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, petitioner has not met his burden and it will be recommended that the petition be dismissed. As the court previously found, even assuming that petitioner was entitled to gap tolling while he pursued his state habeas remedies, absent equitable tolling the petition was filed nearly six months after the statute of limitations had expired and petitioner appeared to acknowledge that the petition is untimely. ECF No. 11 at 3. In his response to the order to show cause, petitioner admits that the instant petition was not timely filed, but asserts that he is entitled to equitable 26 …