Walker v. Patterson et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gary Eugene Walker. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 4/28/2014. (adk)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT
 FOR
 THE

SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

GARY
 EUGENE
 WALKER,

(#
 145517),

 Petitioner

v.

GARY
 HETZEL,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.

12-­‐00732-­‐CB-­‐B

 ORDER

This
 matter
 is
 before
 the
 Court
 on
 the
 Report
 and
 Recommendation
 of
 the

Magistrate
 Judge
 (Doc.
 35)
 and
 on
 Petitioner’s
 Objections
 thereto
 (Doc.
 37).

 The

Magistrate
 Judge
 recommends
 that
 this
 habeas
 petition
 be
 dismissed
 as
 time
 barred

because
 it
 was
 not
 filed
 within
 one
 year
 of
 the
 date
 judgment
 became
 final
 and
 there

equitable
 tolling
 does
 not
 apply

 In
 his
 objection,
 Petitioner
 argues
 that
 the

Magistrate
 Judge
 used
 the
 wrong
 triggering
 date
 for
 the
 limitations
 period.

 Rather

than
 measuring
 the
 one-­‐year
 period
 from
 the
 date
 judgment
 became
 final
 as

required
 by
 28
 U.S.C.
 §
 2244(d)(1)(A),
 Petitioner
 contends
 that
 the
 limitations

period
 should
 be
 measured
 based
 on
 §
 2244(d)(1)(D).

 Under
 that
 subsection,
 the

period
 begins
 to
 run
 on
 “the
 date
 on
 which
 the
 factual
 predicate
 of
 the
 claim
 or

claims
 could
 have
 been
 discovered
 through
 the
 exercise
 of
 due
 diligence.”

 28
 U.S.C.

§
 2244(d)(1)(D).

Due
 diligence
 requires
 that
 Petitioner
 “must
 show
 some
 good
 reason
 why
 he

or
 she
 was
 unable
 to
 discover
 the
 facts
 supporting
 the
 motion
 before
 filing
 the
 first

habeas
 motion.”

 In
 re
 Boshears,
 110
 F.3D
 1538,
 1540
 (11th
 Cir.
 1997)
 (defining
 due

diligence
 in
 context
 of
 second
 or
 successive
 petition);
 accord
 Melson
 v.
 Allen,
 538

F.3d
 983
 (11th
 Cir.
 2008)
 (applying
 Boshears
 due
 diligence
 definition
 to

2244(d)(1)(D)),
 rev’d
 on
 other
 grounds,
 560
 U.S.
 ___,
 130
 S.Ct.
 2549
 (2010).

 A
 mere

allegation
 that
 Petitioner
 did
 not
 know
 about
 the
 claims
 earlier
 is
 not
 sufficient.

 Id.

Here,
 Petitioner
 points
 to
 two
 new
 pieces
 of
 evidence
 that
 he
 has
 recently
 obtained,

but
 he
 has
 failed
 to
 explain
 why
 this
 evidence
 could
 not
 have
 been
 discovered

earlier.1

In
 sum,
 Petitioner’s
 objection
 has
 no
 merit.

 As
 the
 Magistrate
 Judge
 correctly

concluded,
 the
 one-­‐year
 limitations
 period
 began
 to
 run
 on
 the
 date
 judgment

became
 final,

 28
 U.S.C.
 §
 2244(d)(1)(A),
 and,
 thus,
 the
 petition
 is
 time
 barred.

Therefore,
 after
 de
 novo
 review,
 the
 Court
 hereby
 OVERRULES
 Petitioner’s

objections
 and
 ADOPTS
 the
 Magistrate
 Judge’s
 Report
 and
 Recommendation.

DONE
 and
 ORDERED
 this
 the
 28th

 day
 of
 April,
 2014

s/Charles
 R.
 Butler,
 Jr.

Senior
 United
 States
 District
 Judge

1The
 first
 piece
 of
 evidence
 is
 a
 letter
 from
 the
 Alabama
 Bar
 Association

dated
 March
 31,
 2014,
 confirming
 that
 Petitioner’s
 trial
 attorney,
 Vader
 Al

Pennington,
 has
 been
 disciplines
 11
 times
 since
 1991,
 including
 two
 suspensions,

and
 ending
 with
 disbarment
 in
 2010.

 Clearly,
 Mr.
 Pennington’s
 status
 has
 been
 a

matter
 of
 public
 record
 since
 at
 least
 2010.

 The
 second
 is
 a
 supplemental
 forensics

report
 dated
 June
 18,
 1986,
 providing
 analysis
 of
 a
 palm
 print
 submitted
 to
 the

laboratory
 for
 identification
 and
 identified
 as
 Petitioner’s.

 Petitioner
 states
 that
 he

obtained
 a
 copy
 of
 this
 document
 in
 July
 2013
 from
 attorneys
 who
 represented
 him

in
 his
 state
 court
 DNA
 discovery
 motion.

 Petitioner,
 has
 provided
 no
 explanation
 as

to
 why
 he
 could
 not
 have
 obtained
 this
 evidence
 through
 discovery
 at
 some
 earlier

stage
 of
 the
 state
 court
 proceedings,
 such
 as
 one
 of
 his
 six
 Rule
 32
 petitions.