Wilson #644695 v. Harry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 re 8 : Petitioner's petition and certificate of appealability are DENIED; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ANTOINE LAMONT WILSON,
Case No. 1:17-CV-61
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 15, 2017, Magistrate Judge Green issued a Report and Recommendation (R &
R) recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because it is
barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(A). The magistrate judge
concluded that the one-year limitations period expired on September 28, 2016. (ECF No. 11 at
PageID.206.) The magistrate judge also concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling
because, although Petitioner may have been diligent, he failed to identify any extraordinary
circumstance warranting the application of equitable tolling. (Id. at PageID.207.) Finally, the
magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish actual innocence. (Id.)
Petitioner has filed Objections to the R & R. After conducting a de novo review of the R &
R and Petitioner’s Objections, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
In his Objections, Petitioner states that the magistrate judge ignored the reasons Petitioner
offered as to why the Court should apply equitable tolling to the petition. For example, Petitioner
states that he was incompetent, meaning ignorant; that Petitioner lacked necessary legal materials
to enable him to file a timely habeas petition; and that Petitioner was not placed on call-outs for use
of the law library, and when Petitioner was called out, he could not get on the computer. However,
even a cursory review of the R & R shows that the magistrate judge did, in fact, address Petitioner’s
asserted grounds for application of equitable tolling. The magistrate judge concluded, correctly, that
none of the grounds Petitioner cited, singly or in combination, supported the application of equitable
tolling. Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground for rejecting the R & R.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must also determine whether a certificate of
appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth
Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio,
263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must “engage in a reasoned assessment
of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be
considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined
Petitioner’s claims under the Slack standard.
Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, “[t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that
reasonable jurists could not find that this Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s claim was debatable or
wrong. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
issued February 15, 2017 (ECF No. 11) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this
Court. Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 12) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED because
it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
This case is concluded.
Dated: March 9, 2017
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
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?