REED v. BICKELL et al

Filing 16

ORDER THAT THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 7/28/14. 7/28/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD REED

:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
TAB BICKELL, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 5:13-cv-04941

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of July 2014, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley (ECF No. 11) and
Petitioner Ronald Reed’s Objection thereto (ECF No. 15), and upon independent review of
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) are OVERRULED.
This Court must make “a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C).
Petitioner objects to only one aspect of the R&R; he argues that AEDPA’s statute of
limitations should be equitably tolled in his case because mental-health problems
prevented him from filing his petition in a timely manner. (See Pet’r’s Objection to R&R
2–3, ECF No. 15.) Mental incompetence may sometimes furnish a ground for equitable
tolling, but not unless the alleged incompetence somehow affects the petitioner’s ability
to file an action on time. Champney v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 469 F. App’x
113, 117 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, Petitioner was not mentally incapable of filing court
documents during the relevant period, for he repeatedly filed untimely PCRA petitions in
state court, both before and after AEDPA’s statute of limitations expired. (See R&R 2, 4–
5, ECF No. 11.) Plainly, then, he could instead have filed a proper petition in the correct
court before it was too late, and this defeats his argument for equitable tolling. See
Champney, 469 F. App’x at 118 (“[Petitioner’s] participation in court proceedings over
an extended period of time compel the conclusion that the extraordinary remedy of
equitable tolling is not warranted here.”). Furthermore, the fact that Petitioner may have
received bad legal advice from “jailhouse lawyers,” see Pet’r’s Objection to R&R 3, is
irrelevant. See generally Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that, in
non-capital cases, even mistakes by actual lawyers do not typically call for equitable
tolling). Finally, Petitioner’s claim that he “timely asserted his rights in the wrong
forum,” Pet’r’s Objection to R&R 3, is unconvincing because his latter two PCRA
petitions were, in fact, untimely filed in the wrong forum. (See R&R 2.)

1

Whatever the nature of Petitioner’s mental-health difficulties, they did not prevent him
from filing a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Equitable tolling is therefore
inappropriate, and Petitioner’s objections are overruled.
2. For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED.
3. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without an
evidentiary hearing.
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Legrome D. Davis
Legrome D. Davis, J.

2