United States District Court, D. Kansas
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CROW, U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se, and the Court grants
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has conducted
an initial review of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases and, for the reasons that follow,
directs petitioner to show cause why this matter should not
be dismissed as time-barred.
was convicted in the District Court of Sedgwick County of
aggravated burglary and rape and sentenced to 272 months in
prison. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v.
Fraley, 2004 WL 1443894 (Kan. App. Jun. 25,
2004)(unpublished order), rev. denied, 278 Kan. 849
(Sep. 14, 2004).
September 13, 2005, petitioner filed a post-conviction
challenge to his conviction under K.S.A. 60-1507 alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct,
and other errors. The state district court summarily denied
relief, but the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed that
decision and remanded it. Fraley v. State, 189 P.3d
580 (Table), 2008 WL 3367566 (Kan. App. Aug. 8, 2008). The
district court appointed counsel, heard argument, and again
denied relief. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Fraley v. State, 258 P.3d 387 (Table), 2011 WL
2795474 (Kan. App. Aug. 26, 2011), rev. denied, Feb.
that matter was pending, petitioner filed a pro se motion in
his criminal case seeking funds for an investigator. The
district court denied that request, and the Kansas Court of
Appeals affirmed. State v. Fraley, 2012 WL 2326006
(Kan. App. Jun. 15, 2012)(unpublished opinion), rev.
denied, 296 Kan. 1132 (Mar. 26, 2013).
2014, petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504, and in July 2014, he filed a
motion to arrest the judgement of conviction. The district
court denied relief in separate rulings; the Kansas Court of
Appeals consolidated petitioner's appeals and affirmed.
State v. Fraley, 372 P.3d 446 (Table), 2016 WL
3219099 (Kan. App. Jun. 10, 2016), rev. denied, Oct.
petition is subject to the one-year limitation period
established by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act (“AEDPA”) in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Section 2244(d)(1) provides:
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