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.

Rindahl v. Young

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

August 8, 2019

RANDY LEE RINDAHL, Petitioner,
v.
DARIN YOUNG, Respondent.

          ORDER

          DANETA WOLLMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner, Randy Lee Rindahl, an inmate at the South Dakota Department of Corrections in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken's Standing Order dated April 1, 2018.

         BACKGROUND

         Mr. Rindahl's petition indicates he was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault and received sentences of twenty-five years and fifteen years. (Doc. 1 at p. 1). In the petition, Mr. Rindahl states that he was convicted on January 16, 1989, and sentenced on December 16, 1988; the court believes Mr. Rindahl intended to represent that he was sentenced on January 16, 1989. Mr. Rindahl filed a direct appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which was denied. The petition does not include the date of the appeal. (IcL at p. 2). Mr. Rindahl filed his first state habeas action on February 10, 2010, and his second on August 24, 2018. (Id. at p. 3-4). Mr. Rindahl filed this federal habeas corpus petition on November 8, 2018.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Rule 4

         Rule 4 of the rules governing § 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 Petitioner's pending § 2254 petition may be barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations.

         II. 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-
(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 ...

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.