Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00407/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00407-0/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

Greenwood originally filed his petition in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama. Because the Middle District of Alabama is where his convictions and

sentences arose, the action was transferred to this court. Although Greenwood’s petition was datestamped “filed” in United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on February

5, 2007, the petition was signed by Greenwood as delivered to prison authorities for mailing on

January 31, 2007. Under the “mailbox rule,” a pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed the date it

is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Adams

v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the court deems January 31, 2007, as the date of filing. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMOND GREENWOOD, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No.2:07cv407-WKW

) (WO) 

GWENDOLYN C. MOSLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

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

§ 2254 filed by Demond Greenwood (“Greenwood”), a state inmate, on January 31, 2007.1

By his petition, Greenwood challenges his convictions for first-degree rape and first-degree

robbery, and the resulting sentences, rendered in the Circuit Court of Dale County, Alabama,

on February 24, 1997. Greenwood was sentenced, as a habitual offender, on May 23, 1997,

to terms of 40 years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. He did not

undertake a direct appeal. His convictions became final by operation of law on July 7, 1997.

The respondent has filed an answer in which she argues that Greenwood’s habeas

Case 2:07-cv-00407-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Subsection (d) was added by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

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

2

petition is barred by the one-year limitation period applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).2

 The respondent contends that because the convictions that

Greenwood challenges became final in 1997 – after the effective date of the statute of

limitations – Greenwood must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of these

convictions becoming final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state post-conviction

petition related to the convictions was pending in the state courts. The respondent

acknowledges that Greenwood filed a state post-conviction petition pursuant to Rule 32,

Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, in July of 2002. However, the respondent maintains

that the filing of that Rule 32 petition did not toll the federal one-year period of limitation

because the state petition was filed well after the federal limitation period had already

expired. See Moore v. Crosby, 321 F.3d 1377, 1381 (11th Cir. 2003); Tinker v. Moore, 255

F.3d 1331, 1333-1335 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.

2000).

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

that Greenwood’s§ 2254 petition is precluded from review by this court because it was not

filed within the time allowed by applicable federal law. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) provides 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 judgment expired. The Circuit Court of Dale County entered the challenged

Case 2:07-cv-00407-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 4
3

convictions against Greenwood on February 24, 1997. The trial court imposed sentence upon

Greenwood on May 23, 1997. Greenwood did not file a direct appeal. By operation of law,

then, his convictions became final on July 7, 1997 – the first business day forty-two days

after imposition of sentence, excluding state holidays – as this is the date on which

Greenwood’s time to seek direct review expired. See Rule 4(b)(1), Alabama Rules of

Appellate Procedure.

The record demonstrates that Greenwood filed a state post-conviction petition under

Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, in July 2002. However, that action did not

toll the one-year period of limitation relevant to this federal habeas action as it was filed

approximately four years after the one-year period of limitation had expired. Moore v.

Crosby, 321 F.3d 1377, 1381 (11th Cir. 2003) (“The plain language of the statute provides

for tolling ‘[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or

other collateral review ... is pending.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). While a ‘properly filed’

application for post-conviction relief tolls the statute of limitations, it does not reset or restart

the statute of limitations once the limitations period has expired. In other words, the tolling

provision does not operate to revive the one-year limitations period if such period has

expired.”); Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1335 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[A] properly filed

petition in state court only tolls the time remaining within the federal limitation period.”);

Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven ‘properly filed’ state-court

petitions must be ‘pending’ [during the one-year period of limitation] in order to toll the

Case 2:07-cv-00407-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 4
4

limitations period. A state court petition ... that is filed following the expiration of the

limitations period cannot toll that period because there is no period remaining to be tolled.”).

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the tolling provision provided in §

2244(d)(2) is unavailing and the time allowed Greenwood for the filing of a federal habeas

petition expired on July 8, 1998. Greenwood filed this federal habeas petition January 31,

2007. 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 Greenwood’s filing the instant

§ 2254 petition. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before June 4, 2007, Greenwood 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 14th day of May, 2007.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00407-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 05/14/07 Page 4 of 4