Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00375/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00375-1/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 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

RICHARD CHRISTOPHER ASHE, #244457, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:14-cv-375-WHA 

 ) 

KARLA JONES, et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Respondents. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #11), 

entered on October 6, 2014, and the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #12), filed on October 27, 

2014. Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court 

finds as follows: 

 The one-year federal limitation period for Ashe to file a timely §2254 habeas petition 

expired on July 26, 2007. Ashe filed his habeas petition on March 12, 2014. The 

Recommendation finds Ashe’s petition to be time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

 In his objection, Ashe reasserts his argument that the federal limitation period does not 

apply to his petition because he raises a “jurisdictional” claim that the trial court allowed him to 

be convicted of a charge not contemplated within the original indictment. However, as noted in 

the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, there is no exception to the limitation period in § 

2244(d) for claims regarding the state trial court’s jurisdiction. 

 Ashe also asserts, for the first time, that (1) the state prevented him from timely filing by 

making it difficult for him to obtain his trial transcript and other records and (2) his attorney 

Case 2:14-cv-00375-WHA-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 2
abandoned him. As noted, this is the first time he presents such allegation to this court. 

Moreover, the allegations are cursory and fail to assert facts that demonstrate the link between 

the matters alleged and his untimely filing. 

 Therefore, the Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby 

 ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED, and this case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

 DONE this 29th day of October, 2014. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-00375-WHA-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2