Alexander v. Uttecht, 3:19-cv-05721

Petitioner Benjimen Alexander, incarcerated under a Washington state conviction, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his confinement.
Alexander’s claims asserted his charges were improper because he was charged by information rather than indictment and contended Washington state courts lack jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters.
The petition was filed on August 4, 2019; Respondent answered on October 3, 2019.
Magistrate Judge Christel issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) on November 18, 2019, recommending dismissal with prejudice as untimely under AEDPA’s one-year limitations period.
Petitioner filed objections (and several related motions) arguing the filing was an original civil action not subject to AEDPA’s limitations; he also submitted an untimely reply and motions to amend caption, compel information, amend the writ, and for reconsideration.
The district court reviewed the R&R de novo, rejected Petitioner’s arguments, adopted the R&R, dismissed the § 2254 petition with prejudice as untimely, denied a certificate of appealability, denied the remaining motions as moot, and entered judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations applies	Alexander contends his filing is an original civil action not governed by AEDPA	Respondent asserts this is a § 2254 habeas petition subject to AEDPA limits	Held: AEDPA applies; petition is a § 2254 habeas and subject to the one-year limit
Whether the petition was timely filed	Alexander implies timeliness is not required because his filing is not a habeas petition	Respondent cites the judgment date and lapse beyond AEDPA’s one-year period	Held: Petition was filed more than one year after conviction became final and is untimely
Merits claim that charging by information (not indictment) renders confinement unlawful	Alexander argues charging by information deprived courts of proper authority and warrants relief	Respondent treats argument as substantive but procedurally time-barred	Held: Court did not reach merits because claim is time-barred; dismissal with prejudice for untimeliness
Disposition of ancillary motions (caption amendment, compel info, amend writ, reconsideration)	Alexander requested amendment, information, and reconsideration	Respondent opposed or treated as moot given recommended dismissal	Held: All ancillary motions denied as moot following dismissal; COA denied