United States District Court, D. Alaska
JESSE P. LOCKUK, Petitioner,
EARL HOUSER, Superintendent, Goose Creek Correctional Center, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
K. SINGLETON, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 30, 2018, Jesse P. Lockuk, an Alaska state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his
conviction upon his no contest plea in the Superior Court of
the State of Alaska, Case Number
3DI-02-00500CR. Lockuk asserts that the judgment in that
case, issued on May 31, 2005, is unenforceable by law, and
that his plea agreement was breached.
reviewing the Petition and the state court dockets,
this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 30,
2018, directing Parks to file a Response addressing the
facial untimeliness of the Petition. The OSC explained why
the Petition was facially untimely, why the statutory tolling
available did not render it timely, and why the equitable
tolling doctrine did not appear to be applicable. The OSC
expressly directed Lockuk to explain how the Petition is
timely (if he so contends) and to provide any available
competent evidence to establish such timeliness. Lockuk
responded to the OSC on December 12, 2018.
Court has considered the Petition, the record, and
Lockuk's Response and must conclude that dismissal of
this action with prejudice is warranted due to untimeliness.
The Court takes judicial notice that Lockuk filed an initial
§ 2254 petition in this Court on August 8, 2012, in No.
3:12-cv-00163-SLG-DMS. That case was dismissed without
prejudice on March 18, 2014, for failure to fully exhaust his
federal claims in state court. Lockuk states that he filed
another post-conviction petition in state court in 2015,
which was dismissed in 2016.There is no public record of any
appellate proceedings in the Alaska state courts related to
that post-conviction petition. It does not appear that Lockuk
further litigated his claims until April 2018, when he filed
in this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, No. 3:18-cv-00097-RRB. On October 18,
2018, that case was dismissed without prejudice to timely
filing a habeas petition under § 2254. In that order,
the Court warned Lockuk that “[t]he one-year statute of
limitations will likely prevent the Court from reaching the
merits of a habeas petition filed by Mr.
Lockuk.” In his response to the OSC issued in this
case, Lockuk does not assert facts that would establish that
statutory or equitable tolling is warranted. Rather,
Lockuk's response merely reasserts his contention that
the 2005 judgment against him is invalid.
Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for untimeliness.
pending motions are DENIED as moot.
Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.
Clerk of Court is directed to issue a judgment accordingly.
 Docket 1.
 Docket 1 at 5-8.
 The Court takes judicial notice of the
state court records. Judicial notice is “[a]
court's acceptance, for purposes of convenience and
without requiring a party's proof, of a well-known and
indisputable fact; the court's power to accept such a
fact.” Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest
Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“Materials from a proceeding in another ...