Troxel v. State of Minnesota
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Troxel's objections to the Report and Recommendation 28 are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 17 is ADOPTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Troxel's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 3/6/2018. (JMK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JEDIDIAH DEAN TROXEL,
Civil No. 16-3694 (JRT/DTS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Jedidiah D. Troxel, No. 242425, Minnesota Correctional Facility – Oak Park
Heights, 5329 Osgood Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55082, pro se petitioner.
Matthew Frank, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1800, St. Paul, MN 55101, for defendant.
On October 27, 2016, Petitioner Jedidiah Dean Troxel filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet., Oct. 27, 2016, Docket No. 1.) Troxel
is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole after a Minnesota jury
convicted him of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct. (Id.
at 1.) He was sentenced on November 5, 2013, and never filed a direct appeal. (Id. at 1,
7.) He filed a petition for postconviction relief on December 22, 2014, which the state
district court denied. (R&R at 1, Oct. 18, 2017, Docket No. 17.); Troxel v. State, 875
N.W.2d 302, 305-06 (Minn. 2016). Troxel appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court,
which affirmed the district court’s decision on February 17, 2016. Id. at 316.
Troxel’s § 2254 petition seeks relief on three grounds: (1) the trial judge should
have been disqualified from presiding over his trial based on an appearance of partiality;
(2) the trial court erred in denying his request for a lesser-included-offense jury
instruction on second-degree intentional murder; and (3) the trial court erred in denying
his request to introduce evidence of an alternative perpetrator. (Pet. at 3.)
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Troxel’s habeas petition
as untimely and dismiss the action with prejudice. (R&R at 4.) Troxel filed Objections
on January 31, 2018. 1 (Objs., Jan. 31, 2018, Docket No. 28.) Because Troxel’s § 2254
petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), the Court will overrule his
objection, adopt the R&R, and deny his petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The district judge must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Because Troxel’s objections were
proper, the Court will review the R&R de novo.
Troxel failed to timely object to the R&R because he was transferred to a new facility
and did not receive notice of the R&R. (Order at 1, Jan. 17, 2018, Docket No. 27.) Upon being
informed of the reason for Troxel’s failure to timely object, the Court afforded him additional
time to file objections. (Id.)
THE AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a
one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions filed by state prisoners. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1). The one-year period begins on the date that the petitioner’s “judgment
became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking
such review.” 2 Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). AEDPA tolls the one-year period while a petition
for postconviction relief is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
In this case, Troxel filed his habeas petition 208 days late. He was sentenced on
November 5, 2013, and his 90-day deadline for filing for direct review was February 3,
2014. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 29.03, subd. 3. As such, the one-year period for filing a
habeas petition began on February 4, 2014. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The clock
ran for 321 days before being tolled when Troxel filed his petition for postconviction
relief on December 22, 2014. See id. § 2244(d)(2). The clock began to run again on
February 18, 2016, the day after the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of
Troxel’s state petition for postconviction relief. Id. The one-year limitation period
expired 45 days later, on April 2, 2016. 3 Troxel’s federal habeas petition was filed on
October 27, 2016, which was 208 days after the expiration of AEDPA’s limitation period.
AEDPA establishes four possible dates for the start of the one-year limitation period.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). Troxel concedes that the only provision applicable here is
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). (Objs. at 1, Jan. 31, 2018, Docket No. 28.)
The total time was 366 days, which includes an added day to account for the 2016 leap
Troxel mistakenly argues that Section 2244(d)(2) of AEDPA resets the limitations
period, rather than merely tolling it. Under this assumption, he would have had one year
from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief to file a habeas petition, making
his filing timely. “Section 2244(d)(2) only stops, but does not reset, the [statute of
limitations] clock from ticking and cannot revive a time period that has already expired.”
Cordle v. Guarino, 428 F.3d 46, 48 n.4 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Dunker v. Bissonnette,
154 F. Supp. 2d 95, 103 (D. Mass. 2001)). Nothing in AEDPA suggests that the one-year
limitations period is reset at the conclusion of a state postconviction review proceeding.
The Court will also evaluate whether the doctrine of “equitable tolling” could save
this action from being time-barred. The Supreme Court has held that “§ 2244(d) is
subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645
(2010). AEDPA’s statute of limitations may be equitably tolled if a petitioner shows:
“‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary
circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Id. at 632 (quoting Pace v.
DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)).
To justify tolling, such extraordinary
circumstances must be “beyond a prisoner’s control.” Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d
460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000).
Troxel contends that uncontrollable circumstances, namely his confinement and
limited access to library resources, kept him from a timely filing. But Troxel’s primary
objection – that tolling resets the clock – suggests that his delay in filing was due to
misunderstanding the tolling statute, which is not a circumstance beyond his control.
Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling not warranted
when failure to file timely habeas petition due to petitioner misunderstanding proper
procedure). Even if the conditions of Troxel’s confinement contributed to his failure to
file a timely petition, they do not justify equitable tolling in this case. Confinement alone
is not enough, nor are bare allegations of limited access to library resources.
Kreutzer, 231 F.3d at 463 (“Even in the case of an unrepresented prisoner alleging a lack
of legal knowledge or legal resources, equitable tolling has not been warranted.”).
Troxel’s § 2254 petition is untimely and equitable tolling is not warranted; thus,
the Court will overrule his objections, adopt the R&R, and deny the § 2254 petition.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, Troxel’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 28] are OVERRULED and
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 17] is ADOPTED.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Troxel’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: March 6, 2018
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
_____s/John R. Tunheim____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Court
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?