The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irenas , District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Steven Geiger's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he is challenging his 1992 New Jersey state court conviction and sentence. For reasons discussed below, it appears from review of the petition papers provided by petitioner that his § 2254 habeas petition may be subject to dismissal as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). *fn1
Petitioner, Steven P. Geiger("Petitioner"), filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on or about October 14, 2010. *fn2
According to the allegations contained in his petition, Petitioner was convicted by jury trial on or about October 1, 1992, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County on a count of murder and multiple counts of aggravated assault and weapons charges. On November 6, 1992, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty years without the possibility of parole pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b).
Petitioner filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. On April 10, 1995, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied certification on June 7, 1995. Petitioner did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
On January 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"), pro se, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County. On December 15, 2006, the Superior Court denied the petition. On September 25, 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the Superior Court's denial of PCR. On January 14, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification.
As stated above, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition on October 14, 2010.
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
III. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS
The limitation period for a § 2254 habeas petition is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides in pertinent part:
(1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State ...