Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony Langston v. George Neotti

February 2, 2012

ANTHONY LANGSTON,
PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE NEOTTI, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez United States District Judge

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION; [Doc. No. 8] (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Anthony Langston, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("the Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1, Petition.] Presently before the Court is Respondent George Neotti ("Respondent")'s motion to dismiss the Petition. [Doc. No. 8, Resp't Mot.] For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner states that he is currently housed at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. [Petition at 1.] By the present Petition, Petitioner does not challenge his criminal conviction; rather he seeks to challenge a December 17, 2007 prison disciplinary hearing, in which he was found guilty of possession of inmate manufactured alcohol. [Id. at 6-9.] Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") failed to comply with the appropriate California regulations. [Id. at 6-8.]

Petitioner also contends his due process rights were violated because he did not receive a mental health assessment prior to his disciplinary hearing. [Id. at 9.]

On June 24, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss to dismiss the Petition, arguing that Petitioner's claims are barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that the Petition fails to provide a basis for federal habeas relief. [Resp't Mot. at 3-7.] Petitioner's opposition was due on or before July 25, 2011, but Petitioner has yet to file an opposition.

DISCUSSION

I. Statute of Limitations

Respondent argues that the Petition should be dismissed because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. [Resp't at 3-6.] Because the Petition was filed after April 24, 1996, it is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("AEDPA"). Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a one-year period of limitation applies to an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed "by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." The limitation period runs 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.