Gibson v. Simple
PRISCS-ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jeffrey Gibson,Failure to respond to this order will result in the dismissal of this case. ( Dismissal due by 10/17/2012). Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/18/2012. (Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case No. 3:12cv1255(JBA)
Petitioner Jeffrey Gibson, an inmate confined at the Garner
Correctional Institution in Newtown, Connecticut, brings this
action pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
He challenges his conviction for murder.
Federal habeas corpus statutes impose a one year statute of
limitations on federal petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging a judgment of conviction imposed by a state court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000).
The limitations period begins
on the completion of the direct appeal or the conclusion of the
time within which an appeal could have been filed and may be
tolled for the period during which a properly filed state habeas
petition is pending.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244; Williams v. Artuz,
237 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 924 (2001).
The district court has the discretion to raise the timeliness of
a federal habeas petition sua sponte.
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S.
198, 209-10 (2006).
The petitioner states that the Connecticut Supreme Court
affirmed his conviction in 1999.
Contrary to this
representation, research reveals only the decision of the
Connecticut Appellate Court, issued on December 21, 1999.
State v. Gibson, 56 Conn. App. 154, 742 A.2d 397 (1999).
petitioner never sought certification from the Connecticut
Thus, the petitioner’s conviction became final on
January 10, 2000, twenty days following the appellate court
decision, at the conclusion of the time when the petitioner could
have sought certification from the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The petitioner states that he filed his first state habeas
action, No. CV-01-0808290, in 2001.
State court records indicate
that the petition was filed on May 23, 2001, over sixteen months
after the petitioner’s conviction became final.
action appears to be time-barred.
Equitable tolling may be applied in habeas cases only in
extraordinary and rare circumstances and requires the petitioner
to show that he has been pursuing his rights diligently but
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his
Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149, 153 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied sub nom. Diaz v. Conway, 129 S. Ct. 168 (2008).
threshold for the petitioner to establish equitable tolling is
Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.)
(acknowledging high threshold for establishing equitable
tolling), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 (2000).
The court must
determine whether “the petitioner act[ed] as diligently as
reasonably could have been expected under the circumstances.”
Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F.3d 145, 153 (2d Cir. 2003)
(emphasis in original).
The petitioner must have acted with
reasonable diligence throughout the entire period he seeks to
toll, that is, during the period after the extraordinary
The petitioner is afforded until October 17, 2012 to show
cause why this petition should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Failure to respond to this order will result in the dismissal of
SO ORDERED this 18th day of September 2012, at New Haven,
Janet Bond Arterton
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?