Sallie (DEATH PENALTY) v. Humphrey

Filing 58

ORDER: The Court WITHHOLDS ruling on both 4 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Untimely and 52 Petitioner's Motion for Order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed or, alternatively, Granting Evidentiary H earing. In view of the Courts Scheduling Order, the Court DENIES AS MOOT 54 Respondent's Motion to Strike as Untimely Petitioners Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support for order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/1/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIAM CARY SALLIE,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
vs.
:
:
CARL HUMPHREY, Warden,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:
________________________________ :

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:11-CV-75 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on further consideration of Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Untimely (Doc. 4), Petitioner’s Motion for
Order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed or, Alternatively, Granting Evidentiary Hearing
(Doc. 52) and Respondent’s Motion to Strike as Untimely Petitioner’s Motion and
Memorandum of Law in Support for Order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed (Doc. 54).
In its June 9, 2011 Order, the Court ruled that Petitioner William Carey Sallie’s
state court judgment became final on October 6, 2003, and that Sallie did not toll
AEDPA’s statute of limitations by filing either a state or federal habeas corpus petition
within one year of that date. (Doc. 21). However, the Court ruled the record was
insufficient to permit a determination whether equitable tolling was appropriate.
Pursuant to Chavez v. Sec’y Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 2011),
the Court ordered Sallie “to supplement his Petition to state with particularity the facts
upon which he bases his claim of equitable tolling.” (Doc. 28).

Petitioner did so

September 28, 2011 (Doc. 39). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order Ruling
Habeas Petition Timely Filed or, alternatively, Granting Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 52).

Respondent has filed his Answer-Response on Behalf of Respondent to
Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Brief in Support (Doc 55) and a
Motion to Strike as Untimely Petitioner’s Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support for
order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed. (Doc. 54).
The Court WITHHOLDS ruling on both Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Untimely (Doc. 4) and Petitioner’s Motion for Order Ruling
Habeas Petition Timely Filed or, alternatively, Granting Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 52).
The parties are to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2011 Scheduling Order. After
review of the filings made in accordance with the Scheduling Order, the Court will
determine if an evidentiary hearing is necessary or not and whether equitable tolling
applies.
In view of the Court’s Scheduling Order, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Respondent’s Motion to Strike as Untimely Petitioner’s Motion and Memorandum of Law
in Support for order Ruling Habeas Petition Timely Filed. (Doc. 54).
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of November, 2011.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-