Goodson v. Davenport et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 5

ORDER ON MOTION that the 2 motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 3/13/2012. (jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD ANDRE GOODSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CARTER F. DAVENPORT, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:12cv193-TMH
(WO)

ORDER ON MOTION
Petitioner has filed a motion to stay the proceedings on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
for habeas corpus relief pending the outcome of proceedings on his state post-conviction
petition. (Doc. No. 2.) The court having fully considered this motion, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.
The court advises Petitioner that if he wishes to present claims in state court and to
pursue such claims in a federal habeas petition, he may request voluntary dismissal without
prejudice of the instant action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, the court hereby CAUTIONS Petitioner of the potential consequences of dismissal
of his action pursuant to such a request. Petitioner should be aware of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d),
which establishes a one-year period of limitation for applications for writs of habeas corpus
challenging state court judgments. The one-year period normally runs from the date upon
which the conviction became final, see § 2244(d)(1), but the time during which a “properly
filed” application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending is not

counted. See § 2244(d)(2); Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000). Petitioner is advised that
the pendency of the instant federal habeas action does not toll – and has not tolled – the
one-year limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) should Petitioner subsequently
file another § 2254 petition after dismissal of the instant petition without prejudice. See
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181(2001) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)).
Finally, Petitioner is advised that the fact a § 2254 petition is dismissed without
prejudice does not preclude a determination that a subsequently filed § 2254 petition
is untimely or otherwise procedurally barred.
Done this 13th day of March, 2012.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2