Dudley v. Hagey

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and DISMISSES this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 02/10/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh)

FILElf09 FEB 1113(}6USOC~

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MICHAEL WADE DUDLEY,

Civil No. 08-3042-BR Pet.it.ioner,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
SHANE HAGEY,

R e s p o n d e n t. . John P. Eekrem PO B o x 7 1 1 M e d f o r d , OR 9 7 5 0 1
Attorney for Petitioner
JOHN KROGER Attorney General LYNN DAVID LARSEN Attorney In Charge Department of Justice 1 1 6 2 C o u r t S t r e e t NE S a l e m , OR 9 7 3 0 1

Attorneys for Respondent

1 - OPINION AND ORDER -

BROWN, J u d g e .

P e t i t i o n e r brings t h i s habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ

o f H a b e a s C o r p u s i s DENIED, a n d t h i s a c t i o n i s D I S M I S S E D .
BACKGROUND

On J u l y 2 3 ,

2001,

P e t i t i o n e r was convicted on charges o f Petitioner did On May 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 ,

Sodomy and Failure t o Register as a Sex Offender. not directly appeal the judgment of conviction. Petitioner signed a ("PCR"). petition for

state post-conviction relief The Oregon

T h e PCR t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n .

Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. issued. On A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d h i s P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f Habeas Corpus in this Court. Respondent argues the Petition reply On J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e PCR a p p e l l a t e j u d g m e n t

should be denied as untimely. brief.

Petitioner did not file a

DISCUSSION

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes a one-year limitation period on habeas petitions f i l e d pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
See

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d).

Section 2244 (d) (2)

provides tolling of the one-year period for all of "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-

2 - OPINION AND ORDER -

conviction

or

other

collateral

review

with

respect
§

to

the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending."

28 U . S . C .

2244(d) (2).

T i m e e l a p s e d a f t e r t h e c o n v i c t i o n i s f i n a l a n d b e f o r e a s t a t e PCR f i l i n g , a n d t i m e a f t e r f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e PCR a n d b e f o r e filing of the federal petition counts against the year.
Nino v.

Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-7 (9th Cir. 1999).
Here, Petitioner did not file his federal petition within the limitation period. More than 365 days accrued between the

f i n a l i t y o f P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n a n d f i l i n g o f t h e s t a t e PCR p e t i t i o n a n d t h e t i m e b e t w e e n d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e PCR p e t i t i o n a n d filing of the instant petition. As s u c h , t h e P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f

Habeas Corpus i s untimely, and this action must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e C o u r t DENIES t h e P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s C o r p u s a n d DISMISSES t h i s a c t i o n . I T I S SO ORDERED. ()It DATED t h i s 10 day of February, 2009.

United States District Judge

3 - OPINION AND ORDER -

~:\Share\Brown-LawClerks\08-3042dudley0210opin.wpd