Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111022_0001342.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 22:12:16
Document Index: 12488828

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244']

| Darrin Johnson, Pro Se v. William J. Connolly
DARRIN JOHNSON, PRO SE, PETITIONER,v.WILLIAM J. CONNOLLY, SUPERINTENDENT OF FISHKILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.
By petition dated August 8, 2012, pro se petitioner Darrin Johnson, incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004 New York State Supreme Court, Kings County criminal conviction. The Court grants petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has conducted an initial consideration of this petition and, for the reasons set forth below, determined that the petition appears to be time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA" or "Act"). Therefore, petitioner is directed to submit an affirmation no later than December 21, 2012 explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred.
The court is mindful that "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The court construes pro se pleadings "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F. 3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA" or "Act") signed into law on April 24, 1996, provides in relevant part that:
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. . (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997) (interpreting § 2244 to apply "to the general run of habeas cases . . . when those cases had been filed after the date of the Act").
Petitioner's instant application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 appears to be time-barred under the Act. Petitioner alleges that he was convicted on February 2, 2004. (Petition ("Pet.") at 1.) The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction on July 28, 2009. See People v. Johnson, 64 A.D. 3d 792 (2d Dept. 2009). On January 27, 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal. See People v. Johnson, 13 N.Y. 3d 939 (2010). A petitioner's judgment of conviction becomes final 90 days from the date the New York State Court of Appeals denies leave to appeal -- i.e. after the period in which a litigant can petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. Williams v. Artuz, 237 F. 3d 147, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2001). Therefore, petitioner's conviction became final on or about April 27, 2010, and this petition should have been filed on or before April 27, 2011. The instant petition was filed with this Court on August 8, 2012 and is thus barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), unless tolling is applicable.
In calculating a one-year statute of limitations period, "the time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment of claim is pending shall not be counted." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, filing a post-conviction motion does not start the one-year statute of limitations period to run anew. Rather, the tolling provision under § 2244(d)(2) merely excludes the time a post-conviction motion is under ...