Legal Opinion
Rashid v. Khulmann
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 8, 1998No. 97 CIV. 3037(SS)PublishedCited by 109 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SOTOMAYOR, District Judge.
Respondent moves to dismiss this habeas petition on the ground that the claims asserted by petitioner are barred by the one-year limitations period of § 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”), Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217 (April 24, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner mailed his petition to the Court 359 days after the effective date of the AED-PA, and over ten years after his conviction became final. For the reasons to be discussed, I grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely.
BACKGROUND
Petitione…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by109 opinions
- Mark Vroman v. Anthony Brigano, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Micheal Wyzykowski v. Department of Corrections, Harry K. Singletary, Attorney General, Robert ButterworthCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
- Sorce v. ArtuzDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- Rhodes v. SenkowskiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Winkfield v. BagleyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.