Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bissonette v. Dooley

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

January 3, 2017

DANNY D. BISSONETTE, Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN; DAVID GILBERTSON, CHIEF JUSTICE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT; AND CRAIG A. PFEIFLE, CIR. COURT JUDGE-SEVENTH CIR.; Respondents.

          ORDER

          VERONICA L. DUFFY United States Magistrate Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, Danny D. Bissonette, an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the court interprets liberally as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and the October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief District Judge.

         BACKGROUND

         Mr. Bissonette's petition indicates he pleaded guilty to one count of aggregated grand theft by receiving stolen property. Mr. Bissonette was sentenced in December of 2010, to 8 years' imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal. Mr. Bissonette filed various miscellaneous pleadings in state court subsequent to his conviction although it is unclear whether he filed a state habeas action. Mr. Bissonette filed this federal habeas corpus petition on December 30, 2016.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Rule 4

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states in pertinent part:

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court's assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order . . .

         This court's preliminary review, required by Rule 4, reveals that Mr. Bissonette's pending § 2254 petition may be barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations.

         B. AEDPA Statute of Limitations

         Petitions for habeas relief in federal court collaterally attacking state court convictions are governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA contains a one-year statute of limitations. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides in relevant part:

(d) (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for 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 C
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.