Shannon v. Russell
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 10 ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 10] is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 11/6/13. (CEL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:13CV817 SPM
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The
motion is denied.
On June 3, 2013, the Court dismissed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus, finding that it was barred by the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d). The limitations period expired in April 2009, and petitioner did not file
the instant case until April 2013.
Petitioner seeks equitable tolling of the limitations period on the basis that he
was “placed in a string of Ad-Seg units and his misunderstanding of the rules of the
courts (due to his well documented learning disabilities and mental health issues).”
Under the doctrine of equitable tolling, the AEDPA’s statutory limitations
period may be tolled if a petitioner can show that (1) he has been diligently pursuing
his rights and (2) an extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Holland v. Florida,
130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010). Equitable tolling is a flexible procedure that involves
both recognition of the role of precedent and an “awareness of the fact that specific
circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an
appropriate case.” Id. at 2563.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that “[p]ro
se status, lack of legal knowledge or legal resources, confusion about or
miscalculations of the limitations period, or the failure to recognize the legal
ramifications of actions taken in prior post-conviction proceedings are inadequate to
warrant equitable tolling.” Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2004)
(quotation marks omitted); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000)
(holding that “even in the case of an unrepresented prisoner alleging a lack of legal
knowledge or legal resources, equitable tolling has not been warranted”).
Petitioner’s claim that he has been placed in administrative segregation,
without more, does not show that extraordinary circumstances stood in his way of
filing a timely § 2254 petition.
Placement in administrative segregation is
commonplace, and prisoners submit filings routinely while placed in administrative
segregation. Additionally, petitioner’s claim that he suffers from a learning disorder
and mental illness does not warrant equitable tolling. Petitioner has not shown that
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing a timely petition. And
petitioner has not alleged that he was diligently pursuing his rights while he was in
administrative segregation. As a result, equitable tolling is not warranted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [ECF
No. 10] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
Dated this 6th day of November, 2013.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?