ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is currently a federal prison inmate who is challenging a state sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the ground that it was improperly imposed. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations. Petitioner has filed an opposition, and respondent a reply.
On October 29, 1992, petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of fifty-three years and eight months and an indeterminate term of life in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Lodged Document (Lodg. Doc.) 1. He pursued a direct appeal in the state courts, which culminated in the California Supreme Court's denial of review on November 1, 1995. Lodg. Docs. 2-4.
On April 22, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court; it was dismissed on September 17, 1997, because of petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies. Lodg. Docs. 6-8.
After a period of approximately four years, petitioner returned to state court and filed a habeas petition on June 4, 2001, in San Joaquin County Superior Court. A second petition was filed on March 15, 2007, again in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Petitioner filed a third petition on May 23, 2007, this time in San Francisco County Superior Court.*fn2
The instant petition was filed on October 5, 2007.
II. The Statute Of Limitations
One of the changes the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) made to the habeas statutes was to add a statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition:
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post- conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted ...