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.

Langley v. Fisher

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 24, 2019

RANDY LANGLEY, Petitioner,
v.
RAYTHEL FISHER, [1] Respondent.

          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)

         Petitioner 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.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         On June 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. (LDs[2] 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).[3] Petitioner filed four state habeas petitions, which were all denied. (LDs 3–10).

         On April 24, 2019, [4] 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).

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         On 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. § 2244(d)(1).

         Section 2244(d) provides:

(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 ...

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.