Simmons v. Taylor

Filing 39

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the petitioner's Motion to Reconsider. Said Motion, therefore, is hereby DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/16/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

TARINA SHANTAYNE SIMMONS
Petitioner,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
SHARON TAYLOR, WARDEN
Respondent.

No. 3:13-0436
Judge Trauger

O R D E R
By an order (Docket Entry No.32) entered July 24,2013, the
instant pro se § 2254 habeas corpus action was dismissed as
untimely.
Since the entry of this order, the petitioner has filed a
Motion to Reconsider (Docket Entry No.38) the dismissal.
In her Motion to Reconsider, the petitioner does not dispute
the fact that her habeas corpus petition was not filed in a timely
manner. Rather, she claims that she is entitled to an equitable
tolling of the limitation period, sufficient to allow the Court to
reach the merits of her claims. More specifically, the petitioner
argues that she is entitled to equitable tolling because she did
not have access to an adequate law library or someone who could
help her prepare the petition.
In an earlier pleading, the petitioner alleged an entitlement
to

equitable

tolling

based

upon

a

mental

impairment

and

the

discovery of new evidence. See Docket Entry No.31 at pgs.1-2. At
that time, she did not mention a problem with the adequacy of the
prison’s law library or inmate legal assistance. She has apparently
abandoned that position and is now asserting that she was unable,
due to her ignorance of the law, to prepare and file a timely
habeas corpus petition.
A habeas petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the
limitation period because it is statutory and the subject of
published case law. Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 402 (6th Cir.
2004). Ignorance of the law, standing alone, is not sufficient to
warrant equitable tolling of the applicable limitation period. Id.
at pg. 403.
Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s
Motion to Reconsider. Said Motion, therefore, is hereby DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge