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, )

Download PDF
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?