The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert C. Mitchell, United States Magistrate Judge
Hubert Jackson has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a valid basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied. Jackson is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset serving an eight to twenty year sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of charges of rape and unlawful restraint at No. CC 198808196 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on May 5, 1989.*fn1 No appeal or other relief in the state courts was pursued.*fn2
In the instant petition executed on January 20, 2009, Jackson contends he is entitled to relief on the following grounds:
1. False imprisonment due to fraud by officers of the court rendering judgment of sentence in violation of due process.
2. Deprivation of freedom beyond term of sentence in violation of the federal cruel and unusual punishment clause.
It is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (d)(2) that:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to the application for a 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 of 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 applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
In the instant case, the petitioner was sentenced on May 5,1989 and no appeal was pursued. In Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565 (3d Cir.1999), the Court noted that in the absence of the filing of a petition for review, the judgment becomes final when the time period in which to seek that review expires. Thus, the petitioner's conviction became final on June 4, 1989. The effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which imposed the one year statute of limitations is April 24, 1996 and thus it is applicable here. Thus, the petitioner would have had one year from that date to seek relief here. Since, the ...