Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00700/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00700-1/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

SHAWN M. DICKINSON, #256 934, *

Petitioner, *

v. * 3:11-CV-700-TMH

 (WO)

WARDEN MASAN, et al., *

 

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER

This cause is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief

filed byShawn Dickinson, a state inmate, on August 25, 2011, and his amended petition filed

on September 22, 2011. Following a trial in the Circuit Court for Russell County, Alabama,

a jury convicted Petitioner ofsecond degree rape, second degree sodomy, and second degree

sexual abuse on December 5, 2007. The trial court imposed a twenty year sentence on the

rape conviction and a twenty year sentence on the sodomy conviction with said sentences to

run consecutively. For the sexual abuse conviction, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to

twelve months in the county jail and directed said sentence to run concurrently with the

sentence imposed for his rape conviction. By operation of law, Petitioner’s convictions

became final on November 19, 2008.

Pursuant to the orders of this court, Respondents filed an answer in which they argue

that the instant habeas petition, as amended, is barred by the one-year limitation period

Case 3:11-cv-00700-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 5
applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Respondents contend 1

that because Petitioner’s convictions became final in November 2008 -- after the effective

date of the statute of limitations -- he must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of

these convictions becoming final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state postconviction petition was pending in the state courts. Respondents concede that Petitioner filed

a state post-conviction petition on May 4, 2009, and a second Rule 32 petition on August 2

13, 2010. They maintain, however, that even allowing a tolling of the limitation period

during the pendency of these Rule 32 petitions, the limitation period expired prior to

Petitioner filing the present federal habeas petition. (Doc. No. 17 at pgs. 6-11.); see also

Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11 Cir.); Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333- th

1335. n.4 (11 Cir. 2001). th

Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case and applicable case law, it appears that

Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is precluded from review by this court as it was filed outside the

pertinent period of limitation. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) directs that the limitation period for filing a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition begins to run on the date when the time for seeking direct review of the

challenged judgments expires. Petitioner was convicted of second degree rape, second

Subsection (d) was added by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1

1996 (the “AEDPA”). This Act became effective on April 24, 1996.

Although Respondents state that Petitioner filed his first post-conviction petition on or about 2

May 8, 2009, the court deems it appropriate to utilize the date referenced by the Alabama Court of

Criminal Appeals in denying Petitioner’s appeal of his second Rule 32 petition, i.e., May 4, 2009. (See

Doc. No. 17, Exh. G.) 

Case 3:11-cv-00700-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 5
degree sodomy, and sexual abuse by the Circuit Court for Russell County, Alabama, on

December 5, 2007, and sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years’ imprisonment for

the rape and sodomy convictions and a twelve months term of confinement in the county jail

for the sexual abuse conviction to run concurrent with the rape conviction. The Alabama

Court of Criminal affirmed Petitioner’s appeal of his convictions on October 17, 2008 and

issued a certificate of judgment on November 5, 2008. (Doc . No. 17, Exhs, A, B.) Petitioner

did not further appeal his convictions. Since Petitioner failed to seek relieffromthe Alabama

Supreme Court, he was not entitled to file a petition for certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court and the time for seeking direct review of the 2007 convictions, therefore,

lapsed upon expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama

Supreme -- fourteen (14) days from issuance of the certificate of judgment. Rule 39(b),

Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure; see Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225 (11 Cir. 2000), th

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1166, 121 S.Ct. 1129 (2001); see also Rule 13.1, Rules of the United

States Supreme Court (a petition for writ of certiorari may only be filed to review a judgment

or order entered by a state court of last resort and must be filed within ninety (90) days of the

action undertaken by such state court). Thus, Petitioner’s convictions became final on

November 19, 2008 and the one-year limitation period contained in section 2244(d)(1)(A)

began to run on this date.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that “[t]he 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

Case 3:11-cv-00700-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 5
section.” The court finds that the limitation period ran for 165 days or five months and 14

days after Petitioner’s convictions became final until the filing of a Rule 32 petition in the

Circuit Court for Russell County on May 4, 2009. The trial court denied the petition on

February 17, 2010. Petitioner appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition on April

9, 2010. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely on May

5, 2010. Because Petitioner’s appeal of his Rule 32 petition was dismissed as untimely, the

limitation period under § 2244(d), therefore, began to run again on February 18, 2010 and

ran for an additional 180 days or five months and 30 days until Petitioner filed a second Rule

32 petition on August 13, 2010. The trial court denied Petitioner’s second post-conviction 3

petition on October 5, 2010. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower

court’s decision on February 18, 2011. The Alabama Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s

petition for writ of certiorari on June 10, 2011. (Doc. No. 17, Exhs. C-H.) As of the

aforementioned date, Petitioner had twenty (20) days of the applicable limitation period

remaining within which to file a federal habeas petition. The court, therefore, concludes that

the time allowed Petitioner for the filing of a federal habeas petition expired on July 1, 2011. 

As noted, Petitioner filed this application for federal habeas relief on August 25, 2011, 55

days or 1 month and 5 days after the applicable limitation period had expired. 

Under the circumstances of this case as outlined in this order, the one-year period of

limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) expired prior to Petitioner filing the instant

Petitioner’s request for pauper status which accompanied his second Rule 32 petition was signed 3

by Petitioner on August 13, 2010. (Doc. No. 17, Exh. C at pg. 20.)

Case 3:11-cv-00700-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 5
§ 2254 petition. In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that on or before November 7, 2011 Petitioner shall show cause why his

federal habeas petition should not be denied as it was not filed within the one-year limitation

period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Done, this 17 day of October 2011. th

 /s / Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-00700-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/17/11 Page 5 of 5