United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES B. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Timothy Wayne Lambert, a state prisoner appearing pro se,
brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking
a writ of habeas corpus. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1).
Having carefully reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that
it should be dismissed.
Court is required to review all habeas petitions and to order
dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” R. 4, R. Governing
§ 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. The Rule allows the
district court to sua sponte dismiss a petition for writ of
habeas corpus if its untimeliness is “clear from the
face of the petition itself.” Kilgore v. Att'y
Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir. 2008);
accord Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006)
(“[D]istrict courts are permitted . . . to consider,
sua sponte, the timeliness of a state prisoner's
1991,  Petitioner was tried and convicted of lewd
molestation and sentenced to four 400-year sentences, to be
served consecutively. Pet. at 2. Petitioner is currently
serving his sentences at the James Crabtree Correctional
Center in Helena, Oklahoma. See Id. at 1.
appealed his convictions, which were affirmed by the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) on September
28, 1994. See Lambert v. State, No.
F-1992-493 (Okla. Crim. App.).
later filed an application for postconviction relief with the
District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. See Pet. at
3. The district court denied relief on November 7, 1996.
Id. Petitioner filed an appeal of this disposition
with the OCCA, which declined jurisdiction on February 25,
1997. See Lambert v. Evans, No. PC-1997-187 (Okla.
October 2017, Petitioner filed a second application for
postconviction relief with the District Court of Kay County,
Oklahoma, which denied relief on May 7, 2018. See
Pet. at 4. Petitioner appealed this disposition to the OCCA,
which affirmed on July 25, 2018.
then filed the instant habeas action on August 6, 2018,
raising three propositions of error. See Id. at
The Applicable Limitations Period
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) sets forth a one-year statute of
limitation for habeas petitioners challenging the validity of
their conviction or sentence. The one-year limitations period
runs from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time ...