Davis v. Thaler
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Davis has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutuonal right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this court was correct in its procedural ruling. This court will not issue a certificate of appealability. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(chorace)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
DEWA YNE DAVIS,
(TDCJ-CID #1246834)
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL ACTION H-12-2532
§
§
RICK THALER,
§
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
The petitioner, Dewayne Davis, seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.c. § 2254,
challenging his 2004 state conviction for injury to a child. For the reasons set forth below, this suit
is dismissed because Davis filed it too late.
I.
Background
In the 230th 1 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, ajury found Davis guilty of the
felony offense of injury to a child. (Cause Number 965578). On May 12,2004, the jury sentenced
Davis to a 55-year prison term. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed Davis's conviction on
November 3, 2005. Davis did not file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Davis indicates that he filed an application for state habeas corpus relief on June 25, 2012.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application on July 1,2012. (Docket Entry No.1,
Federal Petition, pp. 3-4). On-line research reveals that Davis did not file a state habeas application
Though Davis states that he was convicted in the 339th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, on-line research shows that he was convicted in the 230th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas.
1
P:\CASES\pnsoner-habeas\2012\l2-2532.b()3.\.\'pd
in the 230th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas or in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Texas Judiciary Website, http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us.
On July 18,2012, this court received Davis's federal petition. The threshold issue is whether
the petition is time-barred.
II.
Analysis
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No.1 04-
132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), imposed a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus
petitions filed after April 24, 1996. A district court may dismiss a habeas petition before answer if
it "plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court." Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999).
Before dismissing a petition as untimely, the court must give the parties fair notice and an
opportunity to present their positions. Dayv. McDonough, 547U.S. 198 (2006). Inanorderentered
on September 11,2012, this court ordered Davis to file a written statement by October 22,2012,
showing why this court should not dismiss his petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
(Docket Entry No.8). Davis has not filed a response.
The AEDP A provides in part as follows:
(1)
A I-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 or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B)
the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws
P·\CASES\prisoner·habeas\1012\J2·25J2.bOJ.wpd
---------_._---,
2
of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C)
the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D)
the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of
due diligence.
(2)
The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the
pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted
toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(I)-(2).
Under this statute, the limitations period begins to run from "the date on which the judgment
became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review." Id. § 2244(d)(I)(A). Davis's conviction became final when the time expired for filing a
petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The First Court of Appeals
affirmed Davis's conviction on November 3, 2005, giving Davis 30 days, or until December 3,2005
to file a petition for discretionary review. TEX. R. App. P. 68.2(a). Davis did not file a petition for
discretionary review. Absent tolling, the one-year limitations period would end on December 3,
2006. Davis waited until July 18,2012, before filing his federal petition. His claims are time-barred
unless he can show that a statutory or equitable exception applies.
A properly filed application for state postconviction relief tolls limitations. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(2) (West 1997). Even assuming that Davis did file a state habeas application, it did not
P:\CASES\prisoner-habeas\20 12\12·2532 b03.wpd
3
toll the limitations period because Davis filed it well after the limitations period had ended. Scott
v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260,263 (5th Cir. 2000).
The AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations can be equitably tolled, but only in cases
presenting "rare and exceptional circumstances." Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806,810-11 (5th Cir.
1998); see also Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F .3d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 2000), reh 'g granted in part, 223
F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2000); Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171-72 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 1035 (2000); Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 713 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1164
(2001). "'The doctrine of equitable tolling preserves a plaintiff s claims when strict application of
the statute oflimitations would be inequitable.'" United States v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927,930-31
(5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Davis, 158 F.3d at 810). A habeas petitioner has the burden of proving that
he is entitled to equitable tolling. Phillips, 216 F .3d at 511. "'Equitable tolling applies principally
where the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in
some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.'" Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402 (5th
Cir. 1999) (quoting Rashidi v. American President Lines, 96 F.3d 124, 128 (5th Cir. 1996)), cert.
denied, 529 U.S. 1057 (2000); see also Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F.3d 401, 408 (5th Cir. 2001).
Neither "a plaintiffs unfamiliarity with the legal process nor his lack of representation during the
applicable filing period merits equitable tolling." Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 504 (1999); Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 2000); Fisher v.
Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1999); Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806, 808-12 (5th Cir. 1998);
Barrow v.
s.s. Ass 'n,
932 F.2d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 1991). See United States v. Flores, 981 F.2d 231,
236 (5th Cir. 1993) (an inmate's pro se status, illiteracy, deafness, or lack of legal training do not
amount to factors external to the inmate that excuse an abuse of the writ); Saahir v. Collins, 956 F .2d
P:\CASES\prisoner-habeas\2012\12-2532 b03.wpd
4
115, 118-19 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that neither prisoner's pro se status nor ignorance of the law
constitutes "cause" for failing to include legal claim in prior petition). "Equitable tolling is
appropriate when, despite all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to discover essential information
bearing on the existence of his claim." Fisher, at 715 n.14.
Nor does Davis satisfy any ofthe exceptions to the AEDPA statute oflimitations. The record
does not indicate that any unconstitutional state action prevented Davis from filing an application
for federal habeas relief before the end of the limitations period. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1 )(B). Davis's
claims do not relate to a constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court within the last year
and made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). Davis's claims relate
to the trial on May 12,2004. Davis has not shown that he did not know of the factual predicate of
his claims earlier. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).
Davis's federal petition was filed too late for consideration on the merits.
III.
Conclusion
Davis's challenges to his 2004 conviction are dismissed as time-barred. This case is
dismissed. Any remaining pending motions are denied as moot.
"When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue when the
prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
483-84 (2000)). Davis has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial ofa constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find
P;\CASES\prisoncr-habeas\2012\12-2532,bOJ,wpd
5
------_._._-_.__
...
it debatable whether this court was correct in its procedural ruling. This court will not issue a
certificate of appealability.
SIGNED on October 23,2012, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
P:\CASES\pnsoner-habeas\2012\12-2532.bOJ.wpd
6
----
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?