Gordon v. White et al
Filing
17
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Excuse Procedural Default and Prevent a Miscarriage of Justice. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 8/1/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-525-FDW
GREGORY LYNN GORDON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SUSAN R. WHITE, et al.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Gregory Lynn Gordon, Jr.’s “Motion to
Excuse Procedural Default and Prevent a Miscarriage of Justice.” (Doc. No. 10.)
I.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina who, according to his Petition, pled
guilty on June 13, 2014, in Union County Superior Court, to possession of cocaine. (Pet. 4, Doc.
No. 1.) He also entered a “no contest” plea to attempted escape and admitted attaining the status
of habitual felon. (Pet. 4.) He was sentenced to 101-131 months in prison. (Pet. 4.)
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
federal district court on April 29, 2016. (Pet. 22.) After conducting an initial review, this Court
notified Petitioner that his habeas Petition appeared to be untimely and provided him an
opportunity to explain why it should not be dismissed as such. (Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner filed a
response to the Court’s Order on October 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 7.)
On December 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Petition as untimely.
(Doc. No. 8.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. No. 9.) On December 20, 2016, the
Clerk of Court received and docketed the instant Motion. (Doc. No. 10.)
1
Before the Court ruled on the Motion, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 11.) On April 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit dismissed
Petitioner’s appeal. (Doc. No. 15.)
II.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner purportedly signed the instant Motion on December 15, 2016, before the Court
entered judgment in this action. (Mot. 5, Doc. No. 10.) The Motion appears to be a follow-up to
Petitioner’s earlier response regarding the timeliness of his habeas Petition (Doc. No. 7). In the
instant Motion, Petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566
U.S. 1 (2012), excuses the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.
In Martinez, the Supreme Court held that, in limited circumstances, “[i]nadequate
assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner's
procedural default [of claims] of ineffective assistance at trial.” Id. at 9. This Court, however,
did not hold that Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were procedurally
defaulted. It held that the habeas Petition was untimely. While Martinez may excuse procedural
default of some ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, it does not serve to toll the statute
of limitations. See Lambrix v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 756 F.3d 1246, 1249 (11th Cir.
2014) (“[T]he equitable rule in Martinez ‘applies only to the issue of cause to excuse the
procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim that occurred in a state
collateral proceeding’ and ‘has no application to the operation or tolling of the § 2244(d) statute
of limitations.’” (citations omitted)). In other words, Martinez only excuses the procedural
default of timely-filed ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. Because Martinez has no
bearing on Petitioner’s habeas action, the instant Motion shall be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Excuse Procedural
2
Default and Prevent a Miscarriage of Justice” (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 1, 2017
3
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?