Sanders v. Forniss et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 28

ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1) The Magistrate Judge's 27 Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified; 2) Mr. Sanderss petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/13/2018. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM ROBERT SANDERS,
# 258188,
Petitioner,
v.
LEON FORNISS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-779-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On May 31, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 27)
to which no timely objections have been filed. The Recommendation is due to be
adopted, although one of its sections is due to be modified.
The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner William Robert Sanders’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition is not time-barred based on her reading of the Eleventh
Circuit’s opinion in Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095 (11th Cir. 1995). (Doc.
# 27, at 14.) The Medina court asserted that a “substantive competency claim . . . is
not subject to procedural default and must be considered on the merits.” 59 F.3d at
1111. But Respondents did not argue that Mr. Sanders procedurally defaulted his
substantive competency claim. Instead, they argued that Mr. Sanders’s claim is
“time-barred from review because Sanders filed it well after expiration of the oneyear limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (‘AEDPA’).” (Doc. # 27, at 14 (citing Doc. # 15, at 16–
22).) The Medina court did not address § 2244(d), in part because the Eleventh
Circuit decided Medina before Congress passed AEDPA.
That did not stop this court from citing Medina for the propositions that a
“substantive competency claim is not subject to [§ 2244(d)’s] time bar,” Simon v.
Giles, No. 2:11-CV-1125-WHA, 2015 WL 1292525, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23,
2015) (citing Medina, 59 F.3d at 1111), and that “[t]he law is well settled that a
substantive claim challenging a petitioner’s competency to stand trial is not subject
to the procedural or time limitation bars in either state or federal court,” id. at *2 n.2
(emphasis added) (citing Medina, 59 F.3d at 1111; Wright v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr.,
278 F.3d 1245, 1248–49 (11th Cir. 2002); Glass v. State, 912 So. 2d 285, 288 (Ala.
Crim. App. 2004)). Medina and the other cases this court cited, however, addressed
procedural default but not § 2244(d). And while it does seem to be well-settled law
that a substantive competency claim cannot be procedurally defaulted, the Eleventh
Circuit has at least implicitly held that substantive competency claims can be time
barred under § 2244(d), see Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F.3d 1221, 1225–27 (11th Cir.
2005) (applying § 2244(d) to a substantive competency claim). Thus, this court
appears to have mistakenly conflated procedural default and § 2244(d)’s one-year
statute of limitations.

2

In short, Mr. Sanders’s substantive competency claim is subject to § 2244(d)’s
one-year statute of limitations. As Respondents argued in their Answer, Mr. Sanders
filed his petition outside of that one-year period, and Mr. Sanders is not entitled to
any equitable tolling of that period. (Doc. # 15, at 16–22.) Therefore, Mr. Sanders’s
petition is due to be denied not only on the merits of his substantive competency
claim (as the Magistrate Judge found), but also under § 2254.
Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record and upon
consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 27) is ADOPTED as
modified above;

2.

Mr. Sanders’s petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A final judgment will be entered separately.
On another note, pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Luther Strange’s successor as Attorney General of Alabama, Steven T.
Marshall, is substituted as Defendant.
DONE this 13th day of July, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3