Harrell v. State of Alabama

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that this action be denied as untimely, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent, Cynthia White, and against Petitioner, Erroll G. Harrell. It is further recommended that any motion for a Certificate of Appealability or for permission to appeal in forma pauperis be denied.. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 3/17/2014. (adk)

Download PDF
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  THE   SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  ALABAMA   SOUTHERN  DIVISION     ERROLL  G.  HARRELL,     Petitioner,     v.     CYNTHIA  WHITE,     Respondent,       )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )           CIVIL  ACTION  NO.   11-­‐00702-­‐CB-­‐B     ORDER     This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Petitioner’s  objection  (Doc.  14)  to  the   Magistrate  Judge’s  Report  &  Recommendation  (Doc.  13)  that  this  action  be   dismissed  as  time  barred.    The  Magistrate  Judge  concluded  that  the  petition  was   untimely  because  it  was  filed  more  than  one  year  after  the  underlying  state  court   conviction  became  final,  in  violation  of  28  U.S.C.  §  2244(d)(1).    In  his  objection,   Petitioner  argues  that  the  one-­‐year  limitations  period  does  not  apply  to  claims  such   as  his  that  challenge  the  trial  court’s  subject  matter  jurisdiction.    Section  2244   makes  no  exception  for  jurisdictional  claims,  and  courts  have  uniformly  rejected  the   proposition  that  jurisdictional  claims  are  exempt  from  AEDPA’s  one-­‐year  limitations   period.    See,  e.g.,  Morales  v.  Jones,  417  Fed.  App’x  746,  749  (10th  Cir.  2011)  (state   court’s  lack  of  subject  matter  jurisdiction  is  a  due  process  claim  and  “[a]s  with  any   other  habeas  claim  [  ]is  subject  to  dismissal  for  untimeliness);  Barreto-­‐Barreto  v.   United  States,  551  F.3d  95  (1st  Cir.  2008)  (rejecting  similar  argument  with  respect  to   §  2255’s  limitations  period);  United  States  v.  Card,  534  Fed.  App’x  765  (10th  Cir.   2013)  (denying  COA  and  rejecting  petitioner’s  argument  that  jurisdictional   challenge  was  not  subject  to  §  2255’s  limitation  period);  United  States  v.  Scruggs,   691  F.3d  660,  667  (5th  Cir.  2012)  (movant  was  not  excused  from  including  claim  in   his  §  2255  motion  because  “the  statutory  limitations  on  §  2255  review  apply  to   jurisdictional  claims”).     For  the  foregoing  reasons,  the  Court  OVERRULES  Petitioner’s  objection  and   hereby  ADOPTS  the  Magistrate  Judge’s  Report  and  Recommendation.     DONE  and  ORDERED  this  the  17th  day  of  March,  2014.                               s/Charles  R.  Butler,  Jr.       Senior  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?