Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00034/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00034-0/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)

---

Daniels’s petition was date-stamped “received” in this court on January 15, 2009; however,

1

it was signed by Daniels on January 13, 2009. 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).

“Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume

that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Daniels] signed it.”

Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). th

Subsection (d) was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death PenaltyAct of 1996 (the 2

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE JAMES DANIELS, )

# 118348, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No.1:09cv34-TMH

 ) (WO) 

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

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 on January 13, 2009, by state inmate Willie James Daniels (“Daniels”). By his 1

petition, Daniels challenges a first-degree assault conviction entered against him in

December 1997 by the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Alabama. Daniels was sentenced on

February 5, 1998, to a term of 40 years in prison. He did not appeal the conviction.

The respondents have filed an answer in which they argue that Daniels’s habeas

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). The respondents contend that because the conviction that 2

Case 1:09-cv-00034-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 3
2

Daniels challenges became final in 1998 – after the effective date of the statute of limitations

– Daniels must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of the conviction’s becoming

final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state post-conviction petition related to the

conviction was pending in the state courts. The respondents observe that Daniels challenged

his conviction and sentence through a state post-conviction petition filed in July 2007.

However, the respondents maintain that the state proceeding had no effect on the running of

the federal limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as it was initiated well after the

federal limitation period expired. See Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11 Cir.

th

2000); also Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333 1335 n.4 (11 Cir. 2001). th

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

that Daniels’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. Daniels was convicted, following a jury trial in the Circuit

Court of Coffee County, on December 18, 1997. He was sentenced on February 5, 1998.

He did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. Because he failed to undertake

the direct appeal process, his conviction became final on March 19, 1998 (forty-two days

after imposition of sentence), as this is the date on which his time to seek direct review

expired. See Rule 4(b)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The one-year period of

limitation contained in section 2244(d)(1)(A), therefore, began to run on this date and ran

Case 1:09-cv-00034-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 02/05/09 Page 2 of 3
3

uninterrupted until it expired on March 19, 1999.

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

section.” By the time Daniels filed his state post-conviction petition challenging his

conviction (in July 2007), the time allowed Daniels for the filing of a timely federal habeas

petition had long since expired. Thus, the state proceeding could have no tolling effect on

the running of the federal limitations period. Webster, 199 F.3d at 1259; see also Tinker, 255

F.3d at 1333 & 1335 n.4.

Under the circumstances of this case as outlined in this order, it appears that the oneyear period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) expired well before January 13,

2009, the date on which Daniels filed the instant habeas petition under § 2254. Accordingly,

it is 

ORDERED that on or before February 25, 2009, Daniels 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 5 day of February, 2009. th

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00034-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 02/05/09 Page 3 of 3