Ashe v. Jones et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 13

ORDER OVERRULING petitioner's 12 objection; ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERING that the petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC 2244(d). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/29/14. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION RICHARD CHRISTOPHER ASHE, #244457, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) KARLA JONES, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) CASE NO. 2:14-cv-375-WHA (WO) ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #11), entered on October 6, 2014, and the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #12), filed on October 27, 2014. Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court finds as follows: The one-year federal limitation period for Ashe to file a timely §2254 habeas petition expired on July 26, 2007. Ashe filed his habeas petition on March 12, 2014. The Recommendation finds Ashe’s petition to be time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In his objection, Ashe reasserts his argument that the federal limitation period does not apply to his petition because he raises a “jurisdictional” claim that the trial court allowed him to be convicted of a charge not contemplated within the original indictment. However, as noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, there is no exception to the limitation period in § 2244(d) for claims regarding the state trial court’s jurisdiction. Ashe also asserts, for the first time, that (1) the state prevented him from timely filing by making it difficult for him to obtain his trial transcript and other records and (2) his attorney abandoned him. As noted, this is the first time he presents such allegation to this court. Moreover, the allegations are cursory and fail to assert facts that demonstrate the link between the matters alleged and his untimely filing. Therefore, the Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). DONE this 29th day of October, 2014. /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?