Inman v. Stephens

Filing 27

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/4/2017. (daj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
GUY ANDREW INMAN, JR., #1621918
VS.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16cv241

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Guy Andrew Inman, Jr., an inmate confined in the Texas prison system, brings this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Collin County conviction. The cause of action
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson, who issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding that the petition should be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner has
filed objections.
On January 13, 2010, after pleas of guilty and pursuant to a plea bargain, Petitioner was
sentenced to thirty (30) years of imprisonment for four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
He did not appeal the conviction, and it became final. More than five years later, he filed an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court on April 13, 2015. The Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals denied the application without written order on findings of the trial court without a hearing
on January 13, 2016.
The present petition was filed in the Southern District of Texas on April 2, 2016. The petition
was transferred to this Court on April 7, 2016. The petition contains four claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. A recommendation was made to dismiss the petition as time-barred.
Petitioner’s conviction became final thirty days after he was sentenced on January 13, 2010.
Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2003); Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir.
1

2000). The conviction became final on February 12, 2010. Petitioner had one year to file the present
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The petition was due on February 12, 2011, in the absence of
tolling provisions. It was not filed until April 2, 2016.
Petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court on April 13, 2015.
By then, the present petition was already time-barred by more than four years. The pendency of the
state application did not effectively toll the deadline of February 12, 2011.
Petitioner’s objections focus on equitable tolling. In particular, he stresses that he had serious
medical problems from 2010-2014, including chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure,
coronary artery disease, diabetic mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and asthma. He had chronic
kidney disease and congestive heart failure at the time he pled guilty. After his arrival at the Texas
prison system, he spent considerable amount of time at the University of Texas Medical Branch in
Galveston, Texas, where he had no access to a law library for inmates.
During early 2010, Petitioner contacted Tina Church, an individual who led him to believe
that she was an attorney, who informed him she would assist him challenge his conviction. He later
learned that she was a private investigator. On June 7, 2010, he wrote to the Actual Innocence Center
at the University of Texas seeking help. He was told that he would be placed on the list for review.
On December 18, 2013, he was advised that he was still on the list for review. He contacted Sam
Adamo, an attorney, on February 29, 2012. Adamo accepted his case for review, but he advised
Petitioner that he did not prepare writs in March 2013. Petitioner contacted current counsel on
December 15, 2013. Counsel filed Petitioner’s state application on April 13, 2015.
The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations may be tolled for equitable reasons.
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he
2

shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary
circumstances stood in his way and prevented timely filing. Id. at 649. “Courts must consider the
individual facts and circumstances of each case in determining whether equitable tolling is
appropriate.” Mathis v. Thaler, 616 F.3d 461, 474 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
The individual facts of this case reveal that Petitioner made some efforts to pursue his rights,
but his efforts cannot be viewed as diligent. The fact that he waited more than six years from the time
he pled guilty to the time the present petition was filed simply cannot be ignored. Three years elapsed
from the time he contacted the Actual Innocence Center until he wrote to them for an update. He
wrote to counsel about the same time that he received the update, but an additional sixteen months
elapsed before counsel filed a state application. These gaps in time must be considered in the context
of the overall one year statutory deadline, and the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner pursued his
rights diligently. With respect to the second prong, Petitioner had obstacles to overcome. Illness may
warrant equitable tolling, but the Fifth Circuit has affirmed decisions denying equitable tolling on
the basis of illness. Jones v. Stephens, 541 F. App’x 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2013); Hulsey v. Thaler, 421
F. App’x 386, 389-90 (5th Cir. 2011). Petitioner has not shown that extraordinary circumstances
stood in his way and prevented timely filing. The Court is of the opinion that equitable tolling does
not save the present petition.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Petitioner’s

3

objections are without merit. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
.

Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and
the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not
previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 4th day of April, 2017.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4