Strickland v. Peters et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Accordingly, Mr. Strickland has not demonstrated the type of extraordinary circumstances that could warrant equitable tolling. The court therefore OVERRULES Mr. Strickland's objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report, and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court WILL DENY a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 2/18/2021. (KEK)
2021 Feb-18 AM 09:28
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TIMOTHY C. STRICKLAND,
KENNETH PETERS, et al.,
Case No.: 7:20-cv-00840-ACA-JHE
After Petitioner Timothy C. Strickland filed a counseled 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for writ of habeas corpus, the magistrate judge entered a report
recommending that the court deny the petition as time-barred.
Mr. Strickland does not challenge the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he filed the
§ 2254 petition outside the one-year period of limitation, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A), but instead objects on the ground that he misunderstood how the
period of limitations is calculated, he has diligently pursued his claims, and
application of the time-bar would be unjust. (Doc. 8).
“[E]quitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy limited to rare and exceptional
circumstances and typically applied sparingly.” Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 853
F.3d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). “To warrant that
extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) that he has been pursuing
his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way
and prevented timely filing.”
(quotation marks omitted).
requirements “are not blended factors; they are separate elements, both of which
must be met before there can be any equitable tolling.” Id. at 1225.
Mr. Strickland’s only assertion of extraordinary circumstances that prevented
timely filing is his misunderstanding of how the time bar is calculated. (See Doc. 8
at 2). But “[a]ttorney miscalculation [of the deadline to file a § 2254 petition] is
simply not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.” Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S.
327, 336 (2007); see also Cadet, 853 F.3d at 1225–26 (holding that an attorney’s
grossly negligent misunderstanding of the § 2244 time bar was not sufficient,
standing alone, to warrant equitable tolling). Accordingly, Mr. Strickland has not
demonstrated the type of extraordinary circumstances that could warrant equitable
tolling. The court therefore OVERRULES Mr. Strickland’s objections, ADOPTS
the magistrate judge’s report, and ACCEPTS his recommendation.
Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among
jurists of reason, the court WILL DENY a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases.
The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this February 18, 2021.
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
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?