Simpson v. Minor

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/06/16. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE E. SIMPSON, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
DEAN MINOR,
Respondent,

No. 4:16-CV-1134 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
George Simpson petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. On August 16, 2016, I ordered him to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. I warned him that if he did not respond, I would
dismiss the case without further proceedings. He has not responded.
Background
On March 5, 2012, petitioner pled guilty to first-degree child molestation and sexual
misconduct or attempt involving a child under fifteen.

Missouri v. Simpson, No. 10AU-

CR000281-01 (Audrain County). On June 4, 2012, the court sentenced him to an aggregate term
of ten years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal.
On February 22, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief. Simpson v.
Missouri, No. 16-AU-CC00007 (Audrain County). He alleged that his rights were violated
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 23, 2016, the court denied the motion
as untimely. Petitioner did not appeal.

Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a petitioner has one year from the date his judgment of
conviction becomes final within which to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Where, as
here, a defendant does not take a direct appeal, the judgment becomes final ten days after it is
entered. See Mo. R. Civ. P. 81.04(a). Therefore, the limitations period ended on June 14, 2013.
Petitioner argued in his petition that he should be given equitable tolling because he lacks
legal knowledge and has Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”).
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, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (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 649-50. “Pro 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).
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he diligently pursued his rights or that an
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Lack of legal knowledge is not an extraordinary
circumstance, nor is ADD. Consequently, he is not entitled to equitable tolling, and this action is
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4; Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006).

2

Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition is untimely. As a result, I will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and
this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2016.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3