Jarrell v. LeBlanc et al
Filing
22
ORDER AND OPINION 20 the Court will overrule Petitioners objection to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation and dismiss Petitioners claim as time barred. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 7/26/2012. (swd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHUCK JARRELL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2913
JAMES LEBLANC, LOUISIANA
SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS
SECTION “K”(1)
ORDER AND OPINION
Petitioner, Chuck Jarrell (“Jarrell”), a state prisoner, was convicted of indecent behavior
with a juvenile under Louisiana law.1 The district judge sentenced Jarrell to seven years
imprisonment2, then adjudicated him to be a multiple offender3, and resentenced him to a term of
ten years imprisonment with the first two years of the sentence to be served without benefit of
probation, parole or suspension of sentence.4 The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
affirmed Jarrell’s conviction, amended his sentence to delete the prohibition of parole eligibility,
and affirmed the sentence as amended.5 On March 7, 2008 the Louisiana Supreme Court denied
petitioner’s writ application.6
1
State Rec., Vol. IV of VI, transcript of October 26, 2005, p. 145; State Rec., Vol I of VI,
minute entry dated October 26, 2005; State Rec., Vol. II of VI, jury verdict form.
2
State Rec., Vol. IV of VI, transcript of February 8, 2006; State Rec., Vol. I of VI, minute
entry dated February 8, 2006.
3
State Rec., Vol. IV of VI, transcript of June 14, 2006.
4
State Rec., Vol. IV of Vi, transcript of December 18, 2006; State Rec., Vol. I of VI,
minute entry dated December 18, 2006.
5
State v. Jarrell, No. 2007KA 0412, 2007 WL 2726718 (La. App. 1st Cir. Sept. 19, 2007);
State Rec., Vol. V of VI.
6
State v. Jarrell, 977 So.2d 897 (La. 2008) (No. 2007-K-2065); State Rec., Vol. V of VI..
1
On November 15, 2011, Jarrell filed a federal application for habeas corpus relief for
ineffective assistance of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §2254.7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and (C), the matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.8 The
Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition for federal habeas corpus relief be dismissed
with prejudice as untimely.9
Jarrell subsequently timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.10 The only legal basis for Jarrell’s objection is his assertion that he “was forced
to take mental health medication” and that “due [to] him being force[d] to take these medications
[that] is the reason for any late or untimely filed writs.”11 The Court construes Jarrell’s objection
as urging that the limitation period should have been equitably tolled based on his being forced
to take “mental health medication.”
A state prisoner must file a § 2254 habeas corpus application within one year of the date
that his judgment “became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time
for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A). Jarrell does not dispute that he did not file
his petition for federal habeas relief within one year of his conviction becoming final. When
strict application of the statute of limitations would be inequitable, the doctrine of equitable
tolling is available to preserve a plaintiff’s claim. U.S. v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927, 930-31 (5th
7
Rec. Doc. 3.
8
Rec. Doc. 20.
9
Id. at p. 7.
10
Rec. Doc. 21.
11
Id. at p. 2.
2
Cir. 2000); Davis v. Johnson, 158 F. 3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998). The doctrine of equitable tolling
“applies principally where the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of
action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Coleman v. Johnson,
184 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir.1999).
The petitioner bears the responsibility of establishing that equitable tolling is warranted.
Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th Cir.), modified on reh’g, 223 F.3d 797 (5th Cir.2000).
A claim of mental incompetence by itself does not automatically entitle a petitioner to equitable
tolling. Smith v. Johnson, 247 F.3d 240, 243 (5th Cir. 2001). A petitioner must “sufficiently
allege facts indicating that his incompetence impeded him from asserting his legal rights.” Id.
Further, brief periods of incapacity during the one-year statute of limitations, whether due to
mental illness, medication, or confinement, do not necessarily warrant equitable tolling. Fisher v.
Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 715-16 (5th Cir. 1999). Even when the petitioner establishes a brief
period of incapacity, he must still demonstrate that he diligently pursued his application during
the remainder of the limitation period and still could not file within the one year period. Id.
Moreover, the fact that a petitioner may have been under the influence of psychotropic
medication during the relevant appeals period does not necessarily give rise to equitable tolling.
See Hulsey v. Thaler, 421 Fed. Appx. 386, 390 (5th Cir. 2011); See also Noble v. Cooper; WL
113587 (E.D. Louisiana, 2012). In Hulsey, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s denial
of equitable tolling to a petitioner who regularly received prescribed doses of psychotropic
medications during his appeals period, but who reported his symptoms as under control,
participated in group therapy while medicated, and consistently denied disabling side effects of
any medications. Id. Based on these facts the appeals court concluded that petitioner had been
3
stable during that period and capable of filing his petition for habeas relief. Id.
To date, Petitioner has made only conclusory allegations concerning his incapacity and
inability to timely file his habeas petition due to the medication he was taking. The Court notes
that Petitioner filed a state post-conviction application during the federal limitations period.12
That filing can be reasonably construed as evidence of a petitioner’s cogency and capability of
taking part in his legal defense. Therefore, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismiss Petitioner’s claim as time barred.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of July, 2012.
________________________________________
STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
12
State Rec., Vol. V of VI, Order dated April 5, 2009.
4
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?