Jenkins v. Warden

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: The court DISMISSES the habeas petition 2 because it is untimely; DENIES Rodney Kinte Jenkins a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 11/20/2020. (bas)

Download PDF
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00905-JD-MGG document 4 filed 11/20/20 page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION RODNEY KINTE JENKINS, Petitioner, v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-905-JD-MGG WARDEN, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Rodney Kinte Jenkins, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction for felony murder, robbery, and criminal confinement under Case No. 02D04-9706-CF-333. Following a trial, on June 29, 1998, the Allen Superior Court sentenced him to one hundred fifteen years of incarceration. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The statute of limitations for habeas corpus cases is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides: (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; USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00905-JD-MGG document 4 filed 11/20/20 page 2 of 3 (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 postconviction 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. On direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court denied Christmas’ petition to transfer on April 3, 2000. Therefore, his conviction became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the time for petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari expired on July 3, 2000. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) (petition for writs of certiorari must filed within 90 days after entry of judgment); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009) (when a state prisoner does not petition the Supreme Court of the United States on direct appeal, his conviction becomes final when the time for filing a petition expires). The limitations period expired one year later on July 3, 2001. Though Jenkins made efforts to obtain post-conviction relief in State court thereafter, these efforts did not restart the federal limitations period, nor did they “open a new window for federal collateral review.” De Jesus v. Acevedo, 567 F.3d 941, 943 (7th Cir. 2009). Further, an additional twenty-two months elapsed between the final ruling 2 USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00905-JD-MGG document 4 filed 11/20/20 page 3 of 3 on Jenkins’ initial petition for post-conviction relief in February 2015 and the filing of a successive petition in December 2016. Therefore, the court denies the habeas petition as untimely. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, the court must consider whether to grant or deny a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability when a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling and (2) whether the petition states a valid claim for denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, there is no basis for finding that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this procedural ruling. Therefore, there is no basis for encouraging Jenkins to proceed further, and a certificate of appealability is denied. For these reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES the habeas petition (ECF 2) because it is untimely; (2) DENIES Rodney Kinte Jenkins a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; and (3) DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. SO ORDERED on November 20, 2020 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3

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?