Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00375/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00375-2/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT ALLEN, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 03-0375-WS-D

 )

WARDEN GRANT CULLIVER, et al., )

 )

Respondent. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Robert Allen’s Objection or in the Alternative

Motion to Alter and Vacate the Judgment (doc. 23). In his filing, petitioner takes issue with the Court’s

finding that he cannot avail himself of the prisoner mailbox rule because he failed to act with reasonable

diligence in following up after failing to hear from any court after submitting his Notice of Appeal to

prison authorities for mailing. Petitioner does not challenge the Court’s determination that he waited

nearly a year before inquiring as to the status of his appeal. Nor does petitioner dispute the existence of

the “reasonable diligence” threshold for entitlement to the prisoner mailbox rule. Instead, petitioner’s

sole argument is that the Court’s finding that his 12-month delay flunks the reasonable diligence

requirement was erroneous.

For the reasons set forth in the Order (doc. 22) dated July 20, 2005, the Court cannot agree. 

After careful consideration of the record and petitioner’s contentions in his latest filing, the Court

remains of the opinion that petitioner’s conduct was inconsistent with his “reasonable diligence”

obligations pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule. Despite having good reason to believe that something

was amiss, petitioner failed to make any effort to follow up for almost a year after he submitted the

Notice of Appeal. He has offered no evidence that he was in any way prevented from making an

inquiry, much less that prison or court authorities misled him or lulled him into a false sense of security

about the status of his Notice of Appeal. Instead, the uncontroverted evidence is that Allen sat on his

hands, taking no action long after any reasonable litigant would have realized that his Notice of Appeal

Case 1:03-cv-00375-WS-M Document 24 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

had never been received or processed. Contrary to petitioner’s position, the Alabama state court

guidelines for timely adjudication of circuit cases are irrelevant to the “reasonable diligence” inquiry

here. Accordingly, petitioner’s Objection is overruled and his Motion to Alter and Vacate the

Judgment is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00375-WS-M Document 24 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2