FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2005 Sacramento County sentence for burglary and receiving stolen property. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations.
Petitioner was convicted in 2001 but resentenced in 2005 after the California Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court. Lodged Documents (Lodg. Docs.) 1-5. He appealed the resentencing; on February 7, 2006 the Court of Appeal ordered the Superior Court to amend the abstract of judgment, but otherwise affirmed. Lodg. Doc. 6. Petitioner did not seek review in the California Supreme Court.
On February 18, 2007, petitioner signed a habeas petition,*fn1 which was filed in the Superior Court and denied on April 9, 2007. Lodg. Docs. 7 & 8; Pet. (Docket No. 1) at 17-18.*fn2
Petitioner's next step was a petition signed on July 21, 2008; this was denied by the Court of Appeal on July 31, 2008. Lodg. Docs. 9 & 10. He filed another petition in the Court of Appeal on October 15, 2008; this was denied on October 30, 2008. Lodg. Docs. 11 & 12.
Petitioner proceeded to the California Supreme Court on November 6, 2008; this petition was denied on December 10, 2008. Lodg. Docs. 13 & 14.
The instant petition was signed on January 12, 2009.
II. The Statute Of Limitations
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) contains a statute of limitations for federal habeas actions:
(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 ...