ORDER

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

This matter is before the court following transfer from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Such transfer occurred on March 5, 2012. The clerk's office filed the action in this district on March 6, 2012. Prior to the case being transferred or on January 12, 2012, the petitioner submitted an application for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 1). Additionally, as directed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the petitioner filed an amended application for a writ of habeas corpus on February 21, 2012. The petitioner paid the required $5.00 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $350.00 filing fee for civil actions, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee is $5.00).

A petitioner, before obtaining federal habeas corpus review of his or her state confinement, must first "exhaust" his or her federal claims in the appropriate state forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). In his amended application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner does not explicitly address whether he ever pursued a timely direct appeal, and he states that he is still pursuing post-conviction relief in the Iowa District Court for Crawford County. Additionally, a review of Lenz v. State, Case No. PCCV036812 (Crawford Cnty. Dist. Ct. 201_), Lenz v. Hicks, Case No. CVCV036853 (Crawford Cnty. Dist. Ct. March 2, 2012), Lenz v. Timmins, Case No. EQCV036814 (Crawford Cnty. Dist. Ct. Feb. 15, 2012), Lenz v. Hoffmeyer, Case No. LACV036837 (Crawford Cnty. Dist. Ct. Feb. 15, 2012), and State v. Lenz, Case No. FECR063244 (Crawford Cnty. Dist. Ct. Nov. 23, 2009), indicates that the petitioner never filed a timely direct appeal after judgment entered against him and he sought post-conviction relief no earlier than December 19, 2011.2 Because the Iowa Supreme Court has never had an opportunity to review his claim that the Iowa District Court for Crawford County did not properly arraign him and because he is still pursuing post-conviction relief, it is appropriate to dismiss the petitioner's action for failing to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).3 Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the petitioner had one year from the date on which his judgment became final to file his application for a writ of habeas corpus, but he waited until January 12, 2012 to seek habeas corpus relief, which is well beyond the one year period.4 Therefore, the petitioner's habeas corpus action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

In sum, because the petitioner did not comply with the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) or file before the applicable statute of limitation ran, it is appropriate to dismiss the petitioner's action. To the extent he desires a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the court concludes there are no appealable issues.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 1) is dismissed, and a certificate of appealability is denied.