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)
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?