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.

Cottier v. Young

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

January 12, 2017

JAMES A. COTTIER, Petitioner,
v.
DARON YOUNG; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; Respondents.

          ORDER

          VERONICA L. DUFFYUnited States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, James A. Cottier, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has filed a petition for 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 Karen E. Schreier, District Judge.

         BACKGROUND

         Mr. Cottier was convicted at trial of manslaughter in the first degree with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment on December 13, 2006. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on August 6, 2008. It is unclear from Mr. Cottier's filings in this case whether Mr. Cottier filed a state habeas action. Mr. Cottier filed this federal habeas corpus petition on January 12, 2017.

         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.