Taylor v. Myers et al
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/13/2022. (KAM)
FILED
2022 Jun-13 PM 02:22
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
FARRON ALEXANDER TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN MYERS, and the
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:18-cv-00653-LSC-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 11, 2021, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Final
Judgment denying Petitioner Farron Alexander Taylor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
for writ of habeas corpus as time-barred and denying a certificate of appealability.
(Docs. 18, 19). On August 25, 2021, Taylor filed a post-judgment motion pursuant
to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 20). Taylor declared
that unforeseen events prevented him from filing timely objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 20 at 2-3).
Although Taylor was granted until October 14, 2021, to file objections, none
were received by the court and on October 27, 2021, the court denied Taylor’s Rule
59(e) motion. (Doc. 24).
On October 29, 2021, the court received Taylor’s objections. (Doc. 25).
Because Taylor certified that he gave the objections to prison officials on October
14, 2021, for delivery to the court, the objections are timely filed. 1 To effectuate
consideration of Taylor’s objections, the court WITHDRAWS the October 27,
2021, order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. (Doc. 24).
Taylor requests the court reject the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he
cannot demonstrate that equitable tolling based on a mental impairment excuses his
untimely petition. (Doc. 25). Taylor argues he presented “sufficient evidence to
create a factual issue as to a causal connection between his mental capacity and his
ability to file a timely § 2254 petition,” and requests an evidentiary hearing. (Doc.
25 at 1-2).
Taylor’s objections are OVERRULED.
The one-year federal statute of
limitations began to run on December 16, 2010, and it expired on December 16,
2011. (Doc. 17 at 5-6). Taylor has never disavowed the validity of an April 12,
2010, forensic evaluation report addressing his competence to stand trial and waive
his Miranda rights, and does not challenge the accuracy of the magistrate judge’s
summary of the report. (Doc. 17 at 9-10 n.7) (citing Doc. 1 at 53-56). That report
demonstrates that Taylor did not have a mental impairment that prevented him from
1
Prisoners proceeding pro se have virtually no control over the mailing of their pleadings, so their pleadings are
deemed to be filed at the time the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison or jail officials to be mailed. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988).
raising parole questions with prison officials before the time for filing his habeas
petition expired had he exercised due diligence.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s
report, and the objections thereto, the court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate
judge and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and this action DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is due to be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED on June 13, 2022.
_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704
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?