Worthy v. Hurley
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed. Show Cause Response due by 11/6/2015. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/7/15. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:15CV1503 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition appears to be barred by § 2254’s one-year limitations
period, and the Court will order petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed.
Petitioner pled guilty to forcible rape and robbery in the first degree in 2009. On January
12, 2010, the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis sentenced petitioner to five years’
imprisonment on the rape and ten years’ imprisonment on the robbery, to be served consecutively.
Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. State v. Worthy, No. 0822-CR07281-01 (22nd Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis City).
Petitioner filed a post-conviction relief motion, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule
24.035 on April 8, 2010. Worthy v. State, No. 1022-CC01691 (22nd Judicial Circuit, St. Louis
City). Petitioner voluntarily dismissed his motion to vacate on July 26, 2010. Id.
On January 9, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 91, in Worthy v. Hurley, No. 15PI-CC00001 (45th Judicial Circuit,
Pike County). Petitioner’s application for writ was denied on July 23, 2015. Id. Petitioner later
filed an appeal of the denial of his application for habeas corpus, but this too, was denied on
September 14, 2015. See State ex rel. Worthy v. Hurley, No. ED103363 (2015).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d):
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion
of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing
by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending
shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
The instant petition has been filed more than four years after petitioner=s state court
judgment of conviction became final. As a result, the Court will order petitioner to show cause
why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. See Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct.
1675, 1684 (2006) (district court must give notice to petitioner before sua sponte dismissing
petition as time-barred).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this action
will be dismissed.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2015.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
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?