United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Troutman (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, has
filed a “Petition for Federal Habeas Corpus” (the
“Petition”), challenging his convictions for
raping his minor daughter. Because the Petition was not filed
within one year of his conviction becoming final, the
Petition will be dismissed as time-barred.
November 8, 2016, Petitioner submitted the Petition to the
Clerk's Office. ECF No.
Court entered a Deficiency Order, directing Petitioner to
utilize the form Section 2254 Petition which is provided by
the Clerk's Office. ECF No. 2. Petitioner complied and
filed a corrected Petition (the “Corrected
Petition”). ECF No. 5. The Corrected Petition raised
the following multiple claims under Ground One:
GROUND ONE: MY RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (RULE 600) MY RIGHT TO
A FAIR, UNPREJUDICE [sic] AND BIAS TRIAL MY COUNSEL WAS
INEFFECTIVELY SUGGESTING BENCH TRIAL VS. JURY TRIAL MEDICAL
REPORTS AND/OR MEDICAL EXPERT EXAMINER NOT SUPOENA [sic] TO
TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT THE VICTIM'S
STATEMENT WAS INCONSISTENT OR INADEQUATE CONCERNING SAID
CRIME. MY JUDGE RULING ON ADMENDING [sic] DATE/YEAR OF CRIME,
DISMISSING/DROPPING AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HAD
VS MY ORIGINAL COUNSEL HAD TO WITHDRAW FROM CASE.
ECF No. 5 at 6.
requesting two extensions of time, ECF Nos. 13 and 15, which
were granted, ECF Nos. 14 and 16, Respondents filed a Motion
to Dismiss, based upon the Petition being time-barred. ECF
No. 17. The Court ordered Petitioner to file a Response to
the Motion to Dismiss no later than May 15, 2017. ECF No. 18.
To date, Petitioner has not filed a response as ordered
despite the deadline for the response having passed.
parties have consented to the plenary exercise of
jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos. 10, 12.
THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED.
The AEDPA Statute of Limitations
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. I,
§101 (1996) which amended the standards for reviewing
state court judgments in federal habeas petitions filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 was enacted on April 24, 1996. Because
the Petition in this case was filed after its effective date,
the AEDPA is applicable to this case. Werts v.
Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 195 (3d Cir. 2000).
correctly pointed out that this Petition is untimely under
the AEDPA. The AEDPA requires that state prisoners file their
federal habeas petition within one year after their
conviction became final. Specifically, the AEDPA provides
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
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