Loines v. Settles

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 8/9/19. (copy mailed to Justin D Loines at Hardeman County Correctional Facility) (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JUSTIN D. LOINES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
DARREN SETTLES,
Respondent.

No.:

3:19-CV-147
REEVES/POPLIN

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred [Doc. 7] and a memorandum
in support thereof [Doc. 8], as well as the state court record [Doc. 6]. Petitioner filed a response
in opposition [Doc. 9]. For the following reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the § 2254
petition [Doc. 7] will be GRANTED and this action will be DISMISSED.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 14, 2010, pursuant to Petitioner’s guilty pleas, the criminal court of Hamilton
County, Tennessee entered criminal judgments against Petitioner for one count of voluntary
manslaughter and one count of facilitation of aggravated child neglect [Doc. 6-1 p. 7–81].
Petitioner did not appeal these convictions, but on July 5, 2016, Petitioner submitted a pro se
petition for post-conviction relief [Id. at 9–52] to the state court and the state court denied the
petition on September 30, 2017 [Id. at 55–62]. On June 29, 2018, the Tennessee Court of Criminal

1

The only judgments against Petitioner in the record before the Court are marked
“corrected” [Id.]. Both of these judgments state that the “judgment date” is July 10, 2010, although
the judge signed them on July 27, 2010 [Id.], and nothing in the record indicates why the criminal
court entered corrected judgments.

Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, and on October 10, 2018, the Tennessee
Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal. Loines v. State, No.
E2017-02088-CCA-R3-PC, 2018 WL 3203118 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2018), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. Oct. 10, 2018). On April 19, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 petition [Doc.
1 p. 20].
II.

ANALYSIS

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), codified in 28
U.S.C. § 2241, et seq., provides a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of an application for
a federal writ of habeas corpus. The statute provides, in relevant part:
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 . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The time “during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending
shall not be counted toward any period of limitation. . . . ,” however. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
For AEDPA purposes, Petitioner’s convictions became final on August 14, 2010, the day
on which Petitioner’s time to file an appeal of the judgments against him expired. See, e.g., Feenin
v. Myers, 110 F. App’x 669 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a)) (providing that where
the Tennessee petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal, his state court conviction was deemed
“final” upon the expiration of the thirty-day time-period in which he could have done so). Thus,
the clock began to run on that date and expired on August 15, 2011.2 While, as set forth above,

2

Three-hundred and sixty-five days after August 14, 2010, is Sunday, August 14, 2011.
As such, the statute of limitations did not run until the next day. Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280,
2

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief with the state court in 2016, this filing
did not revive the AEDPA clock. See Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2003)
(holding that “[t]he tolling provision does not . . . ‘revive’ the limitations period (i.e., restart the
clock at zero); it can only serve to pause a clock that has not yet fully run”).
Accordingly, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition, which he filed on April 22, 2019, is untimely.
The AEDPA statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, however, and is subject to equitable tolling.
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). Equitable tolling is warranted where a petitioner
shows that he has diligently pursued his rights, but an extraordinary circumstance prevented him
from timely filing the petition. Holland, 560 U.S. at 649. A petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is entitled to equitable tolling, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418
(2005), and federal courts should grant equitable tolling sparingly. Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577,
588 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. Inc., 209
F.3d 552, 561 (6th Cir. 2000) (providing that “[a]bsent compelling equitable considerations, a
court should not extend limitations by even a single day”).
Petitioner’s arguments that he is entitled to equitable tolling are that he is untrained in the
law, had no knowledge of the AEDPA statute of limitations, and did not realize that he entered his
guilty plea involuntarily, unintelligently, and unknowingly due to ineffective assistance of counsel
until his family hired legal assistance to investigate his case in April 2019, which was the first time
that his family had the financial means to do so [Doc. 9 p. 3–4]. Petitioner’s lack of knowledge
regarding the statute of limitations and/or the law is insufficient to entitle him to equitable tolling,

283 (6th Cir. 2000) (providing that under Supreme Court Rule 30, the last day of the filing period
shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or federal legal holiday, in which event the period
runs until the next day).
3

however. See Griffin v. Rogers, 399 F.3d 626, 637 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that “ignorance of the
law alone is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling”). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to
establish that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, his § 2254 petition is
time-barred, and this action will be DISMISSED.
III.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Finally, the Court must consider whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA),
should Petitioner file a notice of appeal. A petitioner may appeal a final order in a § 2254 case
only if he is issued a COA, and a COA should issue only where the petitioner has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Where the
district court rejects the § 2254 petition on a procedural basis, a COA shall issue only where
reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the Court’s ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Porterfield v. Bell, 258 F.3d 484, 485–86 (6th Cir. 2001). As reasonable jurors
would not debate the Court’s ruling that the § 2254 petition is time-barred, a COA will not issue.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:
1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred [Doc. 7] will be
GRANTED;
2. A COA will not issue; and
3. This action will be DISMISSED.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:

___________________________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4