Sharp #372783 v. Brewer
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 : Petitioner's petition is DENIED; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KEITH WAYNE SHARP,
Case No. 2:16-CV-99
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Keith Wayne Sharp, has filed Objections to the August 3, 2016 Report and
Recommendation (R & R), in which the magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the
habeas corpus petition as time-barred. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), upon receiving objections
to a report and recommendation, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” After conducting a de novo review of the R & R and Petitioner’s Objections, the Court will
adopt the R & R and overrule Petitioner’s Objections.
Petitioner argues that (1) applying the statute of limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 is
unjust; (2) the magistrate’s interpretation of equitable tolling is unreasonable; and (3) the magistrate
judge should not have considered actual innocence. Section 2244 provides a one-year statute of
limitations for habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is subject to
equitable tolling if a petitioner can demonstrate that (1) he pursued his rights diligently; and (2)
some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing. Ata v. Scutt, 662 F.3d 736, 741
(6th Cir. 2011). “[T]he petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he or she
is entitled to equitable tolling.” Griffin v. Rogers,, 653 (6th Cir.2002). The Sixth Circuit has
cautioned that equitable tolling should be applied sparingly. Ata, 662 F.3d at 741.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Although he
asserts that the magistrate judge erred, he provides no more specific argument as to why he was
excused from complying with the statue of limitations or entitled to equitable tolling. Finally, the
magistrate judge did not err in concluding that Petitioner was not excused from compliance based
on actual innocence, as Petitioner has acknowledged that he is not asserting actual innocence.
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 a petitioner has demonstrated “a
substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” Id. 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 claims was debatable or
wrong. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objection to the R & R (ECF No. 7) is
This case is concluded.
A separate judgment will issue.
Dated: August 24, 2016
/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?