Ragland v. Superintendent

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because it is untimely and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/21/2015. (cc: Ragland)(rmc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
GREGORY C RAGLAND, SR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-108

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Petition under
28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by Gregory C. Ragland, Sr., a pro se prisoner,
on April 8, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DISMISSES this habeas corpus petition because it is untimely and
DENIES a certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND
Gregory C. Ragland, Sr., is challenging his guilty plea and 20
year sentence for Battery as an Habitual Offender by the Madison
Circuit Court under cause number 48C01-0511-FC-440 on February 12,
2007. Ragland filed a direct appeal which concluded when the
Indiana Supreme Court denied his petition to transfer on April 5,
2007. Ragland v. State, 860 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
(table). He did not file a petition for certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court and the deadline for doing so expired on July
5, 2007. Though he filed a post-conviction relief petition, he
waited until November 10, 2011, to do so. DE 3 at 2. His original

habeas corpus petition in this case was signed and mailed on March
2, 2015. DE 1 at 15.

DISCUSSION
Habeas Corpus petitions are subject to a strict one year
statute of limitations.
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-(A) the date on which the judgment became
final by the conclusion of direct review or
the expiration of the time for seeking such
review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to
filing an application created by State action
in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States is removed, if the applicant
was prevented from filing by such State
action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional
right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively
applicable
to
cases
on
collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual
predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application
for State post-conviction or other collateral review with
respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending
shall not be counted toward any period of limitation
under this subsection.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Question 16 on the habeas corpus form included the entire text
of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and asked Ragland to explain why the
petition was timely. He did not answer the question. However,
nothing in his petition indicates that state action prevented him
2

from filing this habeas corpus petition sooner or that the petition
is based on a newly recognized Constitutional right or newly
discovered evidence. Therefore §§ 2244(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D) are
not applicable to this case.
Thus, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), the 1-year period of
limitation began when the judgment became final upon the expiration
of the time for seeking direct review when the deadline for filing
a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court
expired on July 5, 2007. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) and 30(1). The next
day, on July 6, 2007, the 1-year limitation period began. It ran
for one year and expired on July 7, 2008. See Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) (excludes the last day if it is Saturday,
Sunday, or a legal holiday).

Though he would later file a post-

conviction relief petition on November 10, 2011, by then the
deadline had passed and could no longer be tolled. Thus, by the
time that this habeas corpus petition was filed on March 2, 2015,
it was nearly seven years late.
Finally, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, the court must consider whether to grant a certificate
of appealability. When the court dismisses a petition on procedural
grounds,

the

determination

of

whether

a

certificate

of

appealability should issue has two components. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). First, the petitioner must show that
reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the court was
correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 484. If the petitioner
meets that requirement, then he must show that reasonable jurists
3

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
for

the

denial

of

a

constitutional

right.

Id.

As

previously

explained, this petition is untimely. Because there is no basis for
finding that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of this
procedural ruling or find a reason to encourage him to proceed
further, a certificate of appealability must be denied.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this
habeas

corpus

petition

because

it

is

untimely

and

DENIES

certificate of appealability.

DATED: April 21, 2015

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

4

a