English v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
ORDER: The 14 findings and conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and English's § 2254 petition is DENIED and DISMISSED as time-barred. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 8/14/2017) (sss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JOHN ALLEN ENGLISH,
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division,
2011 AUG 14 AH If: 25
Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1134-C
On this day the Court considered the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody, filed by Petitioner, John Allen English, on April 26, 2017. The Respondent has
not yet been served or cited to appear. On June 29, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge
entered her Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation advising that English's§ 2254 petition
be denied as barred by the statute of limitations.
English filed written objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on
July 13, 2017. 1 English raises two objections: (1) that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly calculated
the one-year limitations period in a manner inconsistent with Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214
(2002); and (2) that his claim of "factual innocence" entitles him to equitable tolling. Having
considered these objections and conducted a de nova review of the Findings, Conclusions, and
Like his § 2254 petition, the Court construes the filing date of the objections as the date
that English declares he deposited them in the prison mail system.
Recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that English's reliance on Carey is misplaced and
that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that English's claims are barred by limitations.
See, e.g., Windland v. Quarterman, 578 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2009). The Court is further of
the opinion that English has failed to show that he is entitled to any sort of tolling for the reasons
thoroughly stated by the Magistrate Judge. The objections are OVERRULED.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and
conclusions of the Court and English's§ 2254 petition is DENIED and DISMISSED as time-
barred for the reasons stated therein.
SO ORDERED this
day of August, 2
Magistrate Judge did make an insignificant calculation error in stating that English's
§ 2254 petition was due no later than September 11, 2016. Because this date fell on a Sunday,
the petition would technically have been due by September 12, 2016. But this is ultimately
irrelevant and unhelpful to English because English's petition was still filed more than seven
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?