United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
SUBSTITUTE RESPONDENT (ECF NO. 11)
Randy Langley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se
with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2016
convictions in the Tulare County Superior Court. As the
instant petition was filed outside 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)’s one-year limitation period, the
undersigned recommends granting Respondent’s motion to
dismiss and dismissing the petition.
1, 2016, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Tulare
County Superior Court of battery against a spouse and
disobeying a prior domestic relations court order. Petitioner
was sentenced to an imprisonment term of six years.
1, 2). On October 17, 2017, the California Court of Appeal,
Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. (LD 2).
Petitioner did not seek review in the California Supreme
Court. (ECF No. 11 at 2). Petitioner filed four state habeas
petitions, which were all denied. (LDs 3–10).
April 24, 2019,  Petitioner constructively filed the
instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No.
1). On June 28, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the petition was filed outside the one-year
limitation period. (ECF No. 11). Petitioner filed an
opposition, and Respondent filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 13, 14).
April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ
of habeas corpus filed after the date of its enactment.
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries
v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
The instant petition was filed after the enactment of AEDPA
and is therefore governed by its provisions. AEDPA imposes a
one-year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file
a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.
(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