Opinion
Case No. 1:05-cv-11.
April 20, 2005
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court may sua sponte dismiss a habeas action as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) prior to ordering the respondent to answer. Scott v. Collins, 286 F.3d 923, 929-30 (6th Cir. 2002). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, I conclude that the petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Discussion
I. Factual AllegationsPetitioner Timothy Warren Taylor presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections and housed at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility. He currently is serving a term of two to fifteen years, imposed by the Newaygo County Circuit Court on April 10, 1995, after Petitioner pleaded guilty to unarmed robbery, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.530. According to the petition, on the date of his sentencing, Petitioner made some effort to indicate his intent to appeal, though an appeal was never perfected. On August 7, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in the Newaygo County Circuit Court, in which he claimed that he was coerced by the polygraph examiner to plead guilty and to sign a statement of guilt, despite the fact that he was not in the State of Michigan at the time of the offense. Petitioner did not appeal the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner filed the instant petition on or about December 29, 2004.
Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). Petitioner dated his application on December 29, 2004 and states in his amended petition that he filed it on that date. It was received by the Court on January 5, 2005. Thus, it must have been handed to prison officials for mailing at some time between December 29, 2004 and January 5, 2005. For purposes of this case, the Court gave Petitioner the benefit of the earliest possible filing date.
II. Statute of Limitations
Petitioner's application is barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which became effective on April 24, 1996, as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-132, 110 STAT. 1214 ("AEDPA"). Prior to enactment of the AEDPA, there was no defined period of limitation for habeas actions. Section 2244(d)(1) provides:
Previously, the only time limit was provided in Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, which allows dismissal of a petition only under circumstances where the state has been prejudiced by the delay in filing.
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The running of the statute of limitations is tolled when "a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (limiting the tolling provision to only State, and not Federal, processes); Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (defining "properly filed").
In this case, § 2244(d)(1)(A) provides the period of limitation. The other subsections do not apply to the grounds that Petitioner has raised. Under § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." According to paragraph nine of Petitioner's application, Petitioner did not perfect an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals nor attempt to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. Where a petitioner has failed to pursue an avenue of appellate review available to him, the time for seeking review at that level is counted under § 2244(d)(1)(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (time for filing a petition pursuant to § 2254 runs from "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review.") (emphasis added). However, such a petitioner is not entitled to also count the time available for seeking review at the next state appellate level or the 90-day period during which he could have filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. See United States v. Cottage 307 F.3d 494, 499 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that, in the context of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where a petitioner has failed to file a direct appeal to the court of appeals, the time for filing a petition does not include the ninety-day period for seeking certiorari in the United States Supreme Court because no judgment exists from which he could seek further review in the United States Supreme Court); United States v. Clay, 537 U.S. 522, 123 S. Ct. 1072 (2003) (holding that finality is analyzed the same under §§ 2244(d)(1)(A) and 2255). Here, since the Supreme Court will review only final judgments of the "highest court of a state in which a decision could be had . . .," 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), and since Petitioner may only seek review of his criminal conviction in the Supreme Court after filing in the Michigan Court of Appeals, MICH. CT. R. 7.302(C), Petitioner's conviction must be considered final at the expiration of the one-year period for seeking review in the Michigan Court of Appeals. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir. 2003); Kapral, 166 F.3d at 577; Ovalle v. United States, No. 02-1270, 2002 WL 31379876 at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2002) (citing Wims v. United States, 225 F.3d 186, 188 (2d Cir. 2000)). Petitioner's conviction therefore became final on Tuesday, April 9, 1996. However, because enactment of the statute could extinguish otherwise viable claims, the Sixth Circuit has held that a petitioner whose conviction became final prior to the effective date of the AEDPA, April 24, 1996, has one year from the effective date in which to file his petition. Payton v. Brigano, 256 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Searcy v. Carter, 246 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2001). As a result, Petitioner had until April 24, 1997 to file his petition. Petitioner filed on December 29, 2004. Obviously, he filed more than one year after the time for direct review expired. Thus, his application is time-barred.
While 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that the one-year statute of limitations is tolled while a duly filed petition for state collateral review is pending, the tolling provision does not "revive" the limitations period (i.e., restart the clock); it can only serve to pause a clock that has not yet fully run. Once the limitations period is expired, collateral petitions can no longer serve to avoid a statute of limitations. Because Petitioner's one-year period expired in 1997, his motion for relief from judgment filed in 2003 does not serve to revive the limitations period. See Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Johnson, No. 99-3628, 2000 WL 553948, at *2 (6th Cir. April 28, 2000); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Rashid v. Khulmann, 991 F. Supp 254, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Whitehead v. Ramirez-Palmer, No. C 98-3433 VRW PR, 1999 WL 51793 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 1999).
The one-year limitation period applicable to § 2254 is a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling. Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1007 (6th Cir. 2001). A petitioner bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to equitable tolling. See Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 200 (2004); Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638, 642 (6th Cir. 2003); Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned that equitable tolling should be applied "sparingly" by this Court. See Jurado, 337 F.3d at 642; Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002); Dunlap, 250 F.3d at 1008-1009. There are five factors to be considered in determining whether equitable tolling applies: (1) the petitioner's lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the petitioner's lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one's rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the respondent; and (5) the petitioner's reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his claim. Dunlap, 250 F.3d at 1008 (citing Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1988)). These five factors are not necessarily comprehensive, and one or more factors may not be relevant in a particular case. See Jurado, 337 F.3d at 643.
Petitioner has failed to raise equitable tolling or allege any facts or circumstances that would warrant its application in this case. The fact that Petitioner is untrained in the law, was proceeding without a lawyer, or may have been unaware of the statute of limitations for a certain period does not warrant tolling. See Allen, 366 F.3d at 403; Brown v. United States, No. 01-1481, 2001 WL 1136000, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2001) (citing United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211, 218-19 (6th Cir. 1999)); Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 714-15 (5th Cir. 1999) ("ignorance of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally does not excuse [late] filing."). Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
The Court of Appeals has suggested that a habeas petitioner is entitled to notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard before dismissal of a petition on statute of limitations grounds. See Scott, 286 F.3d at 930. This report and recommendation shall serve as notice that the District Court may dismiss Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief as time-barred. The opportunity to file objections to this report and recommendation constitutes Petitioner's opportunity to be heard by the District Judge.
Recommended Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that the habeas corpus petition be denied because it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.