Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-02285/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-02285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1/ The court notes that when calculating when petitioner’s conviction became final, the magistrate judge actually

gave petitioner the benefit of an additional three months. This was apparently due to the state’s position and

the failure of the state to specifically address whether petitioner filed an application for rehearing on affirmance

of his conviction and a petition for writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Rule 13.1, Supreme Court Rules provides in pertinent part:

A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court

that is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when

it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying

discretionary review. 

Alabama has a provision for discretionary review; however, “[t]he filing of an application for rehearing in the

Court of Criminal Appeals is a prerequisite to review by certiorari in the Supreme Court.” Rule 39(c)(1),

Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. It appears that petitioner did not file an application for rehearing in

the Court of Criminal Appeals and that petitioner would not have been entitled to seek review by a petition for

writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court. It is clear that petitioner did not file a petition for writ of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY DAVIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-B-2285-S

 )

WARDEN GWENDOLYN MOSELY; )

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE )

STATE OF ALABAMA, )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

On January 18, 2005, petitioner filed objections to the December 27, 2004 Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner argues that the “cause” for his habeas petition being barred

by the one year statute of limitation is the failure of his counsel to present his case to the Supreme Court

of Alabama. The magistrate judge did not find that petitioner had procedurally defaulted his federal

claim by failing to timely present the claim in state court or by failing to properly present his claims in

state court. Rather, the magistrate judge found that the petitioner was barred by the one year federal

statute of limitation.1/

 While a showing of cause and prejudice may excuse a procedural default, only

FILED

 2005 Feb-11 PM 02:55

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:04-cv-02285-SLB-PWG Document 11 Filed 02/11/05 Page 1 of 3
certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court; therefore, he was not entitled to certiorari review in the United States

Supreme Court and should not have been given the benefit of 90 days to file a certiorari petition.

Whether petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court and/or the United States

Supreme Court is relevant here not for procedural default purposes but for purposes of determining when

petitioner’s conviction became final and the one year federal statute of limitations began to run. Based on

petitioner’s failure to seek discretionary review in state court, his conviction became final at the latest on

February 28, 2000 when the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued the certificate of final judgment.

Petitioner then had until March 1, 2001 in which to file his federal habeas petition or toll the limitation period

by filing a Rule 32 petition in state court. Petitioner’s October 29, 2001Rule 32 petition was filed almost eight

months after the running of the federal limitation period.

2

equitable tolling (and arguably “actual innocence”) will excuse the filing of an action after the statute

of limitation has run. 

As the magistrate judge noted in the Findings and Recommendation, “[e]quitable tolling is

appropriate when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond

his control and unavoidable even with diligence.” Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th

Cir. 1999). Petitioner has alleged no such extraordinary circumstances. Petitioner complains of the

ineffective assistance of counsel during the appellate process immediately following his conviction and

the denial of “inmate assiste [sic] at Easterling Correctional Facility Law Library etc, on my postconviction petitions” however, these do not constitute extraordinary circumstances which would excuse

PETITIONER’S failure to timely file a FEDERAL habeas petition and thus toll the running of the

limitation period. Further, there is no constitutional right to counsel (by a member of the bar or by a

inmate assistant) in post-conviction proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).

Finally, while petitioner summarily states that he is “actural [sic] innocent of the [crime]

charged,” he has not stated any facts to support this allegation. In order to establish a claim of actual

innocence sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of the habeas petition, petitioner must show “that it is

more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him” of the underlying offense.

Case 2:04-cv-02285-SLB-PWG Document 11 Filed 02/11/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). “To be credible, [ ] a claim [of actual innocence] requires

a petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence–whether it be

exculpatory, scientific evidence, trustworthy eye witness accounts or critical physical evidence–that was

not presented at trial.” Because petitioner has not supported his allegation of actual innocence with any

new reliable evidence that was not previously presented at trial, petitioner has failed to satisfy the Schlup

standard.

Based on the foregoing, petitioner’s objections are due to be overruled. A separate final judgment

consistent with this memorandum opinion will be entered simultaneously herewith.

DONE this 11th day of February, 2005.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02285-SLB-PWG Document 11 Filed 02/11/05 Page 3 of 3