The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the second amended petition filed June 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner challenges his 2009 Yolo County conviction for unlawful morphine possession, a violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a), to which he plead no contest. Petitioner also admitted a prior serious or violent felony conviction for sentencing purposes. Petitioner is serving a sentence of eight years.
Petitioner raises four claims. In claim one, petitioner alleges a Fourth Amendment claim regarding his arrest. In claim two, petitioner alleges a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In claim three, petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. In claim four, petitioner alleges that his plea was involuntary.
Pending before the court is respondent's August 30, 2012 motion to dismiss on grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 63.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that respondent's motion be granted.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides for a one-year period of limitations for state prisoners to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. That section provides:
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.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D).
On December 11, 2009, petitioner plead no contest to violating California Health
and Safety Code § 11350 and admitted a prior serious or violent felony. (Respondent's Lodged Document 2 at 406-08.) On January 25, 2010, petitioner was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, but execution of that sentence was stayed in favor ...