Reed v. State of Missouri

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty 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 10/17/2016. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/16/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VINCENT E. REED,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.

No. 4:16-cv-1444 SNLJ-PLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Vincent E. Reed’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Docket No. 1). Because the petition appears to be barred by
§ 2254’s one-year limitations period, the Court will order petitioner to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to one count of criminal
non-support, a class D felony, and on May 25, 2012 received a suspended imposition of sentence
and a five-year term of probation. He did not file a notice of appeal with the Missouri Court of
Appeals within ten days of the date his judgment became final. Petitioner filed the instant
petition with this Court on September 12, 2016.
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
review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

1

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
diligence.
(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 became final. The Court will therefore order petitioner to show cause why the petition
should not be dismissed as time-barred. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (before
acting on its own initiative, the district court must give petitioner fair notice and an opportunity
to present his position).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later
than thirty days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as timebarred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this
action will be dismissed.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2016.
____________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2