Legal Opinion
Harrison v. Artuz
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided June 30, 2000No. 1:98-cv-03666PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GLEESON, District Judge.
Both of these petitions for writs of habe-as corpus present the question whether an attempt to appeal an unappealable decision — the Appellate Division’s denial of a motion for a writ of error coram nobis— tolls the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”). Answering the question in the negative, I dismiss both petitions as untimely.
BACKGROUND
A. Statute of Limitations
Under AEDPA, a habeas petitioner must file his application for relief within a one-year period of limitations…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- O'Sullivan v. BoerckelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Kevin Smith v. Michael McGinnis Superintendent, Southport Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Anthony Ross v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Tony Bruce Bennett v. Christopher Artuz, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hizbullahankhamon v. WalkerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Clark v. BarkleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Satterfield v. JohnsonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
- Harrison v. ArtuzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001