United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
RUDY LOZANO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Gregory Dickens, Jr., a pro se prisoner, on April 14, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the court DISMISSES this habeas corpus petition because it is untimely and DENIES a certificate of appealability.
Gregory Dickens, Jr., is challenging his conviction and his sentence of Life Without Parole for murder by the St. Joseph Superior Court under cause number 71D01-9708-CF-375 on July 9, 1999. Dickens filed a direct appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court which affirmed the trial court on August 28, 2001. He did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and the deadline for doing so expired on November 26, 2001. He filed a post-conviction relief petition on August 21, 2011, which was denied. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on January 17, 2014. He did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. This petition was signed and mailed on April 7, 2014.
Pursuant to 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the Court must review a habeas corpus petition and dismiss it if "it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief...." Because this petition is untimely, it must be dismissed.
Habeas Corpus petitions are subject to a strict one year statute of limitations.
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(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 ...