Young v. Jones et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 18

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' objections (Doc. # 16 ) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 15 ) is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff's § 2254 petition is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, as the petition was untimely filed after the expiration of the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/26/2016. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS CHRISTOPHER
YOUNG, # 186204,
Plaintiff,
v.
KARLA JONES, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-256-WKW
(WO)

ORDER
On August 31, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #
15) to which Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. # 16.) The court has considered
the record and the objections and has conducted an independent and de novo review
of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
Plaintiff has not shown any error in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
that Plaintiff’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be denied as
untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (setting forth a one-year statute of limitations
for “an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court”). In his objections, Plaintiff implies that the Magistrate
Judge failed to consider whether a claim of actual innocence saves his otherwise
untimely petition. Plaintiff’s petition does not raise a claim of actual innocence.

Plaintiff’s recent conclusory attempt to raise the issue for the first time in his
objections is unavailing. Plaintiff does not provide any details or information, much
less any newly discovered evidence, that would indicate the nature of his claim of
actual innocence or permit any consideration of the issue. See McQuiggin v. Perkins,
133 S. Ct. 1924, 1936 (2013) (holding that the actual innocence “gateway” to open
an untimely or procedurally barred habeas petition “should open only when [the]
petition presents evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence
in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of
nonharmless constitutional error.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. # 16) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED;

3.

Plaintiff’s § 2254 petition is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED

with prejudice, as the petition was untimely filed after the expiration of the one-year
limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 26th day of October, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2