Thomas v. Jones et al
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 2/13/17. (SAC )
2017 Feb-13 PM 02:46
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAVID MATTHEW THOMAS,
KENNETH JONES, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00431-KOB-TMP
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 16, 2016, the magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation in the
above-styled cause, recommending that the court dismissed as time-barred the petition for habeas
corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 11). On December 28, 2016, the court
received a motion for extension of time to file objections from the petitioner (doc. 12), granted it
(doc. 13), and gave petitioner until January 31, 2017 to file objections to the Report and
After the court entered its Memorandum Opinion (doc. 15) and Order (doc. 16) dismissing
the petition as time-barred, the court discovered that the petitioner had file objections that the
petitioner signed on January 29, 2017 but the court did not receive until later. (Doc. 14). This
Amended Memorandum Opinion will discuss those objections.
The court finds that the petitioner’s objections lack merit. Despite the petitioner’s assertions,
the magistrate judge applied the proper law in determining the untimeliness of his current habeas
petition. The magistrate judge acknowledged that the petitioner requested that the court deem the
date he filed his first Rule 32 petition in state court as the date he could have discovered that he was
sentenced without representation for the 1977 sentencing. (R. 11 at 7). The magistrate judge
correctly found that, even using that date for purposes of determining timeliness, the petitioner’s
habeas petition is time-barred. Because the petitioner presented no evidence to support exactly when
he should have discovered the alleged “newly discovered evidence,” the magistrate judge addressed
each possible date that could apply and correctly found that, whatever possible date the court used
in its determination, the petitioner’s current habeas action is time-barred.
Also, despite the petitioner’s conclusory statements regarding his mental illness as the basis
for his delay in “discovering” his lack of counsel during the 1977 sentencing, the court agrees with
the magistrate judge that equitable tolling in this case does not apply for the reasons stated in the
Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the court OVERRULES all of the petitioner’s objections.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the Report and Recommendation and the petitioner’s objections, the court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Consequently, the court finds that
the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the above-styled cause
is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as TIME-BARRED.
The court will enter a separate Order dismissing the petition.
DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2017.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF 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?