Whitaker v. Walker et al
ORDER dismissing with prejudice 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gerald Whitaker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 9/13/2010. (jct)
Whitaker v. Hobbs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J O N E S B O R O DIVISION G E R A L D WHITAKER, A D C # 141195 V. CASE NO. 3:10CV00115-BD R ESPON D EN T PLAINTIFF
R A Y HOBBS, Director, A r k a n s a s Department of Correction
ORDER P e n d in g before the Court is Petitioner Gerald Whitaker's petition for writ of h a b e a s corpus brought pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties have consented to this C o u rt's jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil P ro c e d u re 73. (#18) For the reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed with p re ju d ic e . I. B ackground O n March 4, 2008, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of manslaughter and one c o u n t of abuse of an adult in the Circuit Court of Mississippi County, Arkansas. (Docket E n try #24-3 at p. 1) The court sentenced Petitioner to eighty-four months in the Arkansas D e p a rtm e n t of Correction ("ADC") for manslaughter and imposed a suspended sentence o f seventy-two months for abuse of an adult. (#24-3) P e titio n e r filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Mississippi C o u n ty Circuit Court on January 16, 2009. (#24-6) In an order filed February 3, 2009, the court denied the petition because it was unsigned, undated, improperly notarized,
lacked a certificate of service, and because there was no application to proceed in forma p a u p e ris . On May 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Mississippi County Circuit Court. (#24-8) The second petition contains the same fa c tu a l allegations as the first petition and is still pending in the trial court. (#24 at p.5) P e titio n e r has not filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 37 of the Arkansas R u le s of Criminal Procedure. On June 2, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. In h is petition, Petitioner claims: (1) trial counsel was reluctant to go to trial and pressured h im into a guilty plea; (2) he was heavily medicated on the day he appeared before the tria l court to enter his plea of guilty; (3) the guilty plea was not supported by adequate fa c ts ; (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the plea because the prosecutor did not e s ta b lis h that he was his brother's legal guardian; and (5) the trial court violated his due p ro c e s s rights by denying his request to fire the public defender serving as his attorney. (#2 at pp. 4-8) R e sp o n d e n t contends all of Petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of lim ita tio n s set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and are procedurally barred. (#24) Petitioner re p lie d to the response claiming his plea was not supported by sufficient facts. For the re a s o n s set forth below, Petitioner's petition is dismissed with prejudice.
T h e Statute of Limitations T h e Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28
U .S .C . § 2244(d)(1), establishes a one-year limitations period during which a state p riso n e r may commence a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The statute p ro v id e s that the limitation period begins to run from, "the date on which the judgment b e c a m e final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time limit for s e e k in g such review." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). In this case, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty that precluded him from filing a d ire c t appeal. See ARK. R. APP. P. CRIM. 1(a). Consequently, Petitioner's conviction b e c a m e final on the date the trial court entered the judgment and commitment order, M a rc h 4, 2008, and the statute of limitations expired on March 5, 2009. Petitioner did not file this habeas petition until June 2, 2010, more than a year after the statute of limitations e x p ire d . Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations unless th e statute of limitations can be tolled. A. Statutory Tolling
T itle 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that "[t]he time during which a properly file d application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the p e rtin e n t judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of lim ita tio n under this section." A state post-conviction application is "properly filed" w h e n "its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules g o v e rn in g filings," including "the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, 3
the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee." Artuz v. B e n n e tt, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 364 (2000). A petition for post-conviction relief th a t does not include a properly notarized verification is not, however, a "properly filed a p p lic a tio n for state post-conviction or other collateral review." Walker v. Norris, 436 F .3 d 1026, 1030 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Nelson v. Norris, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 3 3 4 1 2 3 0 at *5 (8th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010)(holding that under Walker, "if a state court finds th a t a motion fails to comply with filing requirements, that motion is not `properly filed,' re g a rd le s s of whether those filing requirements are firmly established") (citations o m itte d ). In this case, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis with the trial c o u rt on January 16, 2009. (#24-6) In an order filed February 3, 2009, the trial court d e n ie d the petition because it was improperly filed. (#24-7 at p. 1) The petition was u n s ig n e d , undated, improperly notarized, and failed to include a certificate of service. (#24-7 at p. 1) Thus, the petition was not properly filed, and Petitioner is not entitled to a n y statutory tolling during the time his first petition for writ of error coram nobis was p e n d in g in the state court.1 O n May 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Mississippi County Circuit Court. (#24-8) The second petition does not toll the
Even if Petitioner were entitled to tolling from January 16, 2009, when he filed th e writ of error coram nobis until the court's order dismissing relief on February 3, 2009, h is petition would still be untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. 4
statute of limitations, however, because it was not filed until after March 5, 2009, when th e statute of limitations expired. Cross-Bey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 3 )(th e statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a proceeding c o m m e n c e d after the limitations period has already expired). Accordingly, Petitioner's c la im s are barred by the statute of limitations unless he is entitled to equitable tolling. B. Equitable Tolling
T h e statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) is subject to equitable to llin g in appropriate cases. Holland v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560 (2 0 1 0 ). "[A] `petitioner' is `entitled to equitable tolling' only if he shows `(1) that he has b e e n pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in h is way' and prevented timely filing." Id. at 2562 (quoting Pace v. Diguglielmo, 544 U .S . 408, 418 (2005)). E q u ita b le tolling affords an "exceedingly narrow window of relief." Id. (quoting J ih a d v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Eighth Circuit has held that pro s e status, lack of legal knowledge or legal resources, and confusion about, or m isc a lc u la tio n s of, the limitations period are inadequate grounds to warrant equitable to llin g . See Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2004). In this case, Petitioner failed to pursue his rights diligently. The trial court denied h is petition for writ of error coram nobis on February 3, 2009. At that point, Petitioner h a d a full month, until March 5, 2009 to file a habeas petition, but he did not file the in s ta n t petition until over a year later, on June 2, 2010. See Nelson v. Norris, __ F.3d __, 5
2010 WL 3341230 at *6 (8th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010)(holding that Petitioner who waited for n in e months after the Arkansas Supreme Court denied rehearing in his case to file a h a b e a s petition had not diligently pursued his rights). In his reply to the response, Petitioner again claims that there was insufficient e v id e n c e to support his guilty plea. (#25) Petitioner has not made any showing, however, th a t an extraordinary circumstance prevented the timely filing of a habeas petition. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling.2 III. C o n c lu s io n P e titio n e r's claims for habeas relief are barred by the one-year limitations period e s ta b lis h e d by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Accordingly, Gerald Whitaker's petition for writ of h a b e a s corpus (#2) is DISMISSED with prejudice. D A T E D this 13th day of September, 2010.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Having concluded that Petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, th e Court will not address Respondent's claim that Petitioner's claims are also p ro c e d u ra lly defaulted. 6
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?