Higginbotham v. King et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 16 Final Judgment Dismissing Case. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 6/11/13. (mhg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES ALLEN HIGGINBOTHAM,
v.
PETITIONER
No. 1:12CV71-M-V
RON KING, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of James Allen Higginbotham
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The state has moved to dismiss the petition
as untimely filed, and the petitioner has responded. The matter is ripe for review. For the
reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be DISMISSED
with prejudice as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Facts and Procedural Posture
On May 21, 2009, the Circuit Court of Winston County, Mississippi, entered judgment
against the petitioner pursuant to a guilty plea for murder; the court sentenced the petitioner to
serve life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. There is no direct appeal
from a guilty plea. MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-35-101. The petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to
File Post-Conviction” in the trial court on October 16, 2009. The trial court granted the motion
December 15, 2009. Higginbotham filed a “Petition for Post-Conviction Relief” on March 17,
2011, and the motion was denied on August 17, 2011. Higginbotham appealed that decision,
which was affirmed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals on September 25, 2012. His petition for
rehearing is currently pending before the state court. The petitioner filed the instant federal
petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 27, 2012.
Discussion
The petitioner’s conviction became final on May 21, 2009, the date he was sentenced on
his guilty plea. MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-35-101. Therefore, the deadline for the petitioner to
submit a properly filed state application for post-conviction relief as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(2) – and thus toll the federal one-year statute of limitations – was one year later on May
21, 2010. Flannagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir. 1998); Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d
806 (5th Cir. 1998). Though, as the State points out, Higginbotham’s motion seeking postconviction relief was, to say the least, skeletal, the court will give him the benefit of the doubt and
credit him with statutory tolling for the 67 days it was pending in state court (October 9, 2009, to
December 15, 2009) . That would push the federal habeas corpus deadline to July 27, 2010 (May
21, 2010 + 67 days). None of the petitioner’s other state court offerings were filed prior to July
27, 2010; as such, they do not further toll the limitations period.
Under the “mailbox rule,” the instant pro se federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
deemed filed on the date the petitioner delivered it to prison officials for mailing to the district
court. Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 401, reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 196 F.3d 1259
(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1057, 120 S. Ct. 1564, 146 L.Ed.2d 467 (2000) (citing
Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376-78 (5th Cir. 1998)). In this case, the federal petition was thus
filed sometime between the date it was signed on February 1, 2012, and the date it was received
and stamped as “filed” in the district court on February 27, 2012. Giving Higginbotham the
benefit of the doubt by using the earlier date, his petition was filed 554 days after the July 27,
2010, filing deadline.
-2-
The petitioner does not allege any “rare and exceptional” circumstance to warrant
equitable tolling. Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d at 513-14. Higginbotham was not actively misled nor
prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights. See Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d at
513-14. In addition, none of the brief allegations made by petitioner in paragraph 18 of the
petition warrant statutory or equitable tolling of the limitations period. Though Higginbotham
claims that he is of less than average intelligence, he has successfully filed pleadings in both state
and federal court since. Further, his lack of knowledge about the law is not a basis upon which to
toll the limitations period. See Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d at 713 (ignorance of law or limited
access to outside information do not constitute a “rare and exceptional” circumstance to excuse
untimely filing); see also Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted)
(neither a prisoner’s ignorance of the law nor the lack of knowledge of a filing deadline justifies
equitable tolling). Moreover, Higginbotham’s general allegations challenging the adequacy of the
law library at the facility where he is housed do not entitle him to either statutory or equitable
tolling. The court held in a previous case that every inmate in MDOC custody has the ability to
submit a request through the Inmate Legal Assistance Program (ILAP) for research of any issues
relevant to challenging his conviction and sentence. See e.g., Antonio Neal v. Bradley, 2006 WL
2796404 (N.D. Miss. September 25, 2006) (inmates in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, have access to legal assistance, case law and other legal materials during their
incarceration.) Higginbotham has not shown that he was impeded in his access to ILAP services
at the facility where he is housed or that his circumstances were such that they were “rare and
exceptional” to warrant equitable tolling.
-3-
For these reasons, The instant petition will dismissed with prejudice and without
evidentiary hearing as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
A final judgment consistent
with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of June, 2013.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
-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?