Joyce v. Culliver, et al
ORDER directing as follows: (1.) Petitioner's 27 objection is OVERRULED; (2.) The court ADOPTS the 26 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner's 25 Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion is DENIED; (3.) Final judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/4/11. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TONY DEANGLO JOYCE, #192555,
GRANT CULLIVER, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:02cv1321-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #26),
and Petitioner’s Objection thereto (Doc. #27).
The Petitioner’s contentions lack merit. He seeks to extend the equitable tolling period
because he did not have his trial transcripts or legal papers and because another inmate took his
legal papers from him. Even assuming the truth of these contentions, they do not rise to the level
of extraordinary circumstances necessary for equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is appropriate
when a prisoner’s § 2255 petition is untimely because of extraordinary circumstances that are
both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence. Drew v. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d
1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2002). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner’s
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion is DENIED.
3. Final judgment will be entered accordingly.
DONE this 4th day May, 2011.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?