From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Artuz

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 21, 1998
161 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 1998)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming for "substantially the reasons stated by the district court"

Summary of this case from Bryant v. United States
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

No. 98-2252

Argued: December 11, 1998

Decided: December 21, 1998

MARSHA R. TAUBENHAUS, New York, New York, for Petitioner-Appellant.

JOSEPH N. FERDENZI, Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County (Nancy D. Killian, Assistant District Attorney, of counsel), Bronx, New York, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, JACOBS, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Rodriguez appeals from Judge Sotomayor's order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Rodriguez contends that application of the one-year statute of limitations in Section 2244 effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Rodriguez v. Artuz, 990 F. Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Artuz

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 21, 1998
161 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 1998)

affirming for "substantially the reasons stated by the district court"

Summary of this case from Bryant v. United States

affirming the dismissal of an untimely petition for a writ of habeas corpus as the one-year statute of limitations period did not constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ

Summary of this case from Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey

affirming "for substantially the reasons stated by the district court"

Summary of this case from Wyzykowski v. Department of Corrections

affirming for "substantially the reasons stated by the district court"

Summary of this case from Clark v. Stinson

In Rodriguez, then-District Judge Sotomayor posited that the limitations period for state prisoners set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 would violate the Suspension Clause if it rendered the habeas remedy "ineffective or inadequate to test the legality of detention."

Summary of this case from Weaver v. U.S.

In Rodriguez, the Second Circuit adopted the district court's reasoning that because AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations leaves habeas petitioners with some reasonable opportunity to have their claims heard on the merits, the limitations period does not render the habeas remedy "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention," and therefore does not per se constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Summary of this case from Coorigan v. Barbery
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Artuz

Case Details

Full title:ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 21, 1998

Citations

161 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

Weaver v. U.S.

We have held that the limitations period for state prisoners petitioning for the first time for a writ under…

Smith v. Artuz

In addition, the Magistrate Judge properly addressed and dispensed with Smith's second argument — that the…

32 Citing Cases