Legal Opinion
Erskine v. Pierce
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided December 21, 2016No. Civ. No. 14-1468-SLRPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROBINSON, District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Justin Erskine (“petitioner”) filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (D.I. 1), and then filed two counseled amended applications for a writ of habeas corpus (“application”). (D.I. 9; D.I. 15) For the reasons that follow, the court will dismiss petitioner’s § 2254 application as time-barred by the one-year period of limitations prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
II. BACKGROUND
The facts leading up to petitioner’s arrest and conviction are as follows:
On June 5, 2006, it…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Holland v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Carey v. SaffoldSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rust v. PhelpsDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2021