BLAND v. GILMORE et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS UNTIMELY; THERE IS NO BASIS TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 7/21/16. 7/22/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT GILMORE, et al.,
JUL 21 2016
LUCY v. CHIN, Interim Clerk
AND NOW, thiJ
day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), and after review of the wellreasoned Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 18) of the Honorable Jacob P. Hart,
United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Upon de nova review, the petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 21) are
I will not consider the substantive merits of Mr. Bland's habeas petition since review of the record makes
clear that Mr. Bland's habeas petition is untimely. Generally, the one-year limitations period to seek federal habeas
review of a state court conviction begins to run from "the date on which the judgment of conviction became fihal by
the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." Williams v. Glunt, No. CIV.
A. 15-781, 2016 WL 3476264, *2 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2016)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)(A)). However, where a
conviction became final prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA") on April 24, 1996, petitioners seeking habeas relief had a one-year grace period to file their petition.
Bums v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 1998). Mr. Bland's conviction became final on January 18, 1988. As
Mr. Bland's conviction became final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, Mr. Bland had until April 24, 1997 to file a
habeas petition. Mr. Bland filed the current habeas petition on November 18, 2015, nearly eighteen years after the
one-year grace period terminated.
An untimely habeas petition may be subject to equitable tolling upon a showing that: "(1) [the petitioner]
has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way and
prevented timely filing." Snyders v. Giroux, No. CIV. A. 15-0521, 2016 WL 3456946, *7 (E.D. Pa. May 27,
2016)(intemal citations omitted). Mr. Bland's Objections do not even address equitable tolling much less present
any compelling argument for its application to his habeas petition. Rather, much of Mr. Bland's Objections reiterate
the arguments which Judge Hart has already considered and rejected in his Report and Recommendation. Mr.
The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice as
There is no basis to issue a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT
Eland's petition for habeas relief was submitted nearly eighteen years after the AEDPA's time limitation and Mr.
Bland has failed to demonstrate any basis for equitable tolling. Accordingly, I am dismissing with prejudice his
habeas petition as untimely.
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?