Adams v. Boyd (INMATE 3)
Filing
21
OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/2016. (dmn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JEROME ADAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN LOUIS BOYD and
LUTHER STRANGE,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv963-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner, through
counsel, filed this habeas-corpus case.
counsel
This
filed
the
lawsuit
is
petition
now
over
before
200
the
Unfortunately,
days
court
too
on
late.
the
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
that
the
barred.
habeas-corpus
Also
before
request
the
be
court
objections to the recommendation.
denied
are
as
time-
petitioner's
After an independent
and de novo review of the record, the court concludes
that
the
objections
must
be
overruled
magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted.
and
the
The court adds these comments.
None of the new
materials petitioner presents with his objections - and
none of the statements in his objections – establishes
that he contracted his lawyer to file a § 2254 petition
when
such
a
filing
might
have
been
timely.
The
contract between petitioner and his lawyer, attached to
the
objections,
indicates
that
the
lawyer
would
represent petitioner through proceedings in the Alabama
Court
of
Criminal
Appeals
and
that,
if
the
lawyer
represented petitioner after that, such services would
require another written agreement.
written
agreement
petitioner.
Nor
is
does
presented
No such additional
or
petitioner
referred
state
the
which any such agreement was entered into.
to
by
date
on
Therefore,
it remains the case that this court has no evidence
that
petitioner
§ 2254
timely.
petition
contracted
with
when
a
such
a
filing
lawyer
might
to
file
have
a
been
At the very most, assuming (without knowing)
that petitioner timely contracted with a lawyer, the
2
facts before the court would establish only attorney
negligence, not extraordinary circumstances warranting
equitable tolling.
Petitioner
(for
alludes
to
attempts
abreast
of
the
the
by
status
first
him
of
time)
and
the
his
§ 2254
also
family
vaguely
to
keep
petition.
No
specifics are provided.
Nor is there any affidavit
describing such efforts.
Therefore, nothing has been
presented
showing
petitioner’s
reasonable
diligence.
Also, nothing has been presented to show the attorney
misconduct required by the Supreme Court in Holland v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010).
For instance, nowhere in
any statements by petitioner is there evidence that his
lawyer
misled
him
about
the
status
of
the
§ 2254
petition.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 29th day of July, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
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?