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, )

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