Goodson v. Boyd et al (INMATE3)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that on or before 10/21/08, Goodson shall show cause why his federal habeas petition should not be dismissed as it was not filed within a reasonable time after enactment of the AEDPA; Show Cause Response due by 10/21/2008. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 10/1/08. (vma, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION S Y L V E S T E R GOODSON, # 099270, P e titio n e r, v LOUIS BOYD, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ORDER T h is case is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 4 filed September 2, 2008, by state inmate Sylvester Goodson ("Goodson").1 Goodson c h a lle n g e s his 1969 convictions for first-degree burglary and assault with intent to ravish, e n te re d in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, and his 1987 conviction for thirdd e g re e burglary, also entered in the Circuit Court of Houston County.2 The respondents filed a n answer (Doc. No. 5) in which they argue, among other things, that Goodson's failure to f ile his petition within the one-year "grace period" allowed in this circuit means his petition ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No.1:08cv729-TMH (WO)
The petition was date-stamped "received" in this court on September 5, 2008; however, it was signed by Goodson on September 2, 2008. A pro se inmate's petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988). "Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Goodson] signed it." Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 2(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, prohibits an inmate from filing a habeas petition challenging judgments "of more than one state court." Arguably, Goodson may join his challenges of the separate judgments in one petition because they originated from the same state court.
is time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The respondents specifically argue that b e c a u s e the challenged convictions were final before the effective date of the Antiterrorism a n d Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Goodson had until April 24, 1997, to f ile a timely § 2254 petition, because he did not file a state post-conviction petition c h a lle n g in g his convictions during the running of the limitation period.3 See Wilcox v. F lo r id a Department of Corrections, 158 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11 th Cir. 1998); Goodman v. U n ite d States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11 th Cir. 1998). U p o n review of the pleadings and evidentiary materials filed in this case, it appears th a t Goodson failed to file his § 2254 petition within the time allowed by applicable federal la w . Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) provides that the limitation period for filing a 28 U .S .C . § 2254 petition begins to run on the date when the time for seeking direct review of th e challenged judgment expired. Goodson challenges his 1969 convictions for first-degree b u rg lar y and assault with intent to ravish, for which the Circuit Court of Houston County im p o s e d sentence on September 8, 1969. He did not appeal those convictions. By operation o f law, then, those convictions became final on October 20, 1969 42 days after imposition o f sentence as that was the date on which Goodson's time to seek direct review expired. See Rule 4(b)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure; Bridges v. Johnson, 284 F.3d 1201, 1 2 0 2 (11 th Cir. 2002). Goodson also challenges his 1987 conviction for third-degree b u rg la ry, for which the Circuit Court of Houston County imposed sentence on December 21,
Subsection (d) of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which became effective on April 24, 1996. 2
1 9 8 7 . Goodson appealed that conviction, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals a f f irm e d in an opinion entered on October 28, 1988. Goodson v. State, 539 So. 2d 1112 (A la . Crim. App. 1988). The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 3, 1989. T h e conviction became final 90 days later when Goodson did not seek certiorari review by th e United States Supreme Court. See Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770, 773-74 (11 th Cir. 2002). In light of the foregoing, it is clear that all convictions challenged by Goodson in his h a b e a s petition became final before enactment of the AEDPA. The Eleventh Circuit has held th a t prisoners in this position must be allowed a reasonable period of time after enactment o f § 2244(d)'s one-year period of limitation to file their § 2254 petitions, and has determined th a t "a reasonable time" is "one year." See Wilcox v. Florida Department of Corrections, 1 5 8 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11 th Cir. 1998); Goodman v. United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11 th C ir. 1998). T itle 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that "[t]he time during which a properly filed a p p lic a tio n for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent ju d g m e n t or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this s e c tio n ." Goodson filed no state post-conviction petitions that would toll the one-year period o f limitation applicable to the instant action. This court concludes, therefore, that the time a llo w e d Goodson for filing a federal habeas petition expired on April 24, 1997. G o o d s o n did not file his federal habeas petition until September 2, 2008 over 10 ye a rs after expiration of the reasonable time period afforded to him under applicable law.
A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that on or before October 21, 2008, Goodson shall show cause why his f e d e ra l habeas petition should not be dismissed as it was not filed within a reasonable time a f te r enactment of the AEDPA. D o n e this 1 st day of October, 2008.
/s/Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?