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.

Huntimer v. Young

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

July 22, 2019

TIMOTHY J. HUNTIMER, Petitioner,
v.
DARIN YOUNG AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Respondents.

          ORDER

          VERONICA L. DUFFY United States Magistrate Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, Timothy J. Huntimer, 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. § 2254. The pending matter was referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Court Judge.

         FACTS

         Mr. Huntimer seeks to challenge his January 30, 2015, judgment of conviction for first-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance and felony failure to appear. See Docket No. 1 at p. 1. Mr. Huntimer did not file a direct appeal. Id. at p. 2. Three years later, in early 2018, Mr. Huntimer filed his first state habeas petition. Id. at p. 3.[1] The state circuit court granted in part and denied in part the application on March 16, 2018. Id. at p. 3. Subsequently, on June 29, 2018, the South Dakota Supreme Court denied Mr. Huntimer's request for review of the circuit court's decision. Id. at pp. 3-4. Mr. Huntimer filed this federal habeas corpus petition on July 19, 2019.

         DISCUSSION

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. Huntimer's pending § 2254 petition may be barred by the 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:
(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 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 ...

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.