Subsequently, on October 31, 2011, petitioner filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to recall its mandate; the motion was denied on November 18, 2011.Champion v. United States, 947 F. Supp. 2d 84, 86 (D.D.C. 2013) (citations omitted). On October 18, 2012, Champion filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Doc. 2 at 40-69).
Champion's subsequent efforts to invalidate his conviction have thus far been unsuccessful. See, e.g., Champion v. United States, 947 F. Supp. 2d 84, 88 (D.D.C. 2013). At issue here is Champion's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus.
A 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by an inmate convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is subject to the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Champion v. United States, 947 F.Supp.2d 84, 87 (D.D.C. 2013). Specifically, § 2244(d) now reads:
First, petitioner is a state prisoner, even though he had parole hearings before the Commission, a federal authority, and has been held in a federal prison. Petitioner is serving a criminal sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, so he is a state prisoner for purposes of federal habeas relief. See Champion v. United States, 947 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87 (D.D.C. 2013) (collecting cases); Williams v. Smith, No. 08-cv-535, 2008 WL 4057859, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008) (same). A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the proper means for a state prisoner to challenge a denial of parole.
Because the filing of a state court post-conviction motion does not reset the limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), but merely puts the already-running period on hold until state post-conviction review is completed, the Court concludes that Lindsey's federal habeas petition is barred by the statute of limitations. See Champion v. United States, 947 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2013) (concluding that a habeas petition was untimely, although the one-year limitations period is tolled while a state collateral review proceeding is pending, because the petitioner failed to file his first motion for postconviction relief in state court until more than one year after the limitations period had expired). Thus, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R and deny Lindsey's habeas petition as untimely.