United States District Court, D. Kansas
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The Court has conducted an initial review of the
petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts and enters the
following order. Under this rule, the Court may sua sponte
dismiss the petition if it “clear from the face of the
petition itself” that the action is not timely.
Kilgore v. Atty. General of Colorado, 519 F.3d 1084,
1089 (10th Cir. 2008).
was convicted of one count of rape under K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2)
and was sentenced to a term of life with a mandatory 25-year
minimum sentence under K.S.A. 21-4643(a). The Kansas Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on June 14, 2013.
State v. Florentin, 303 P.3d 263 (Kan. 2013).
23, 2014, petitioner filed a post-conviction motion under
K.S.A. 60-1507. The state district court denied relief on
February 27, 2015. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed that
decision on November 23, 2016, and the Kansas Supreme Court
denied review on June 20, 2017.
placed his federal petition in the prison mailing system on
November 14, 2017.
matter is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under the AEDPA, a one-year
limitation period applies to habeas corpus petitions brought
under 28 U.S.C. §2254:
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
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