Legal Opinion
Rodriguez v. Artuz
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 8, 1998No. 97 CIV. 4694(SS)PublishedCited by 39 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 over one year after the effective date of the AEDPA, and almost ten years after exhausting his state remedies. For the reasons to be discussed, I grant respondent’s motion to dismiss this habeas petition as untimely.
BACKGROUN…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- McCleskey v. ZantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Thomas Lucidore v. New York State Division of ParoleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- David Warren v. Henry Garvin, Supt. Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, Robert HanslmaierCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Ronnie James v. James Walsh, Superintendent of Ulster Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Paul Clark v. James Stinson, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Rashid v. KhulmannDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.