Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01149/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01149-0/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)

---

Although the habeas petition was date-stamped “received” in this court on December 21, 1

2009, it was signed by Johnson on December 17, 2009. Under the “mailbox rule,” a pro se inmate’s

petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing, presumptively the date

it is signed by the petitioner. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Adams v. United States,

173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999). th

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BERNARD JOHNSON, )

# 216638, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No. 1:09cv1149-TMH 

 ) (WO) 

J.C. GILES, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

O R D E R

This case is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Bernard Johnson (“Johnson”) on December 17, 2009.1

(Doc. No. 1.) By his petition, Johnson challenges his convictions for first-degree sodomy,

attempted rape in the first degree, and third-degree assault and the resulting sentence entered

against him in 2001 by the Circuit Court for Dale County, Alabama.

The respondents have filed an answer (Doc. No. 8) in which they argue that there is

no merit to a claim of “actual innocence” asserted by Johnson in his habeas petition and that

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

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 6
Subsection (d) was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death PenaltyAct of 1996 (the 2

“AEDPA”). This Act became effective on April 24, 1996. The limitation period codified at 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking

such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing

by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the SupremeCourt, ifthe right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable

to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence.

(2) The 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

subsection.

2

petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). With regard to application of the time-bar, the 2

respondents contend that because the convictions Johnson challenges became final in May

2002 – after the effective date of the statute of limitations – Johnson must have filed his

petition within one year of the convictions’ becoming final, exclusive of the time that any

properly filed state post-conviction petition related to the convictions was pending in the state

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 6
3

courts. The respondents acknowledge that, after he was convicted, Johnson filed several

post-conviction petition pursuant to Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.

However, the respondents maintain that even allowing any applicable tolling of the federal

limitation period during the pendency of state proceedings on the Rule 32 petitions, the

limitation period expired prior to Johnson’s filing of the instant habeas petition. See Webster

v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11 Cir. 2000); also Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333 th

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

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

that Johnson’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. Exhibits submitted

by the respondents reflect that Johnson was convicted, following a jury trial, on March 1,

2001. The trial court imposed Johnson’s sentence on April 25, 2001. (See Respondents’

Exh. A.) Johnson appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and that court

affirmed his convictions and sentence on December 14, 2001. (Respondents’ Exh. B.)

Johnson filed an application for rehearing, which the Court of Criminal Appeals overruled.

Johnson then sought certiorari review in the Alabama Supreme Court, which that court

denied on February 12, 2002. A certificate of judgment was issued that same day.

(Respondents’ Exh. C.) Johnson did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 6
Although the Rule 32 petition was date-stamped as filed in the Circuit Court of Dale County 3

on November 8, 2002, Johnson represented that he signed the petition and submitted it to prison

officials for mailing on November 5, 2002. Under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s petition is

deemed filed in federal cases on the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. See Houston

v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. th

1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). “Alabama courts have [adopted the th

mailbox rule and] held that a pro se incarcerated petitioner/appellant is considered to have ‘filed’

a Rule 32 petition, a notice of appeal, or a petition for a writ of certiorari when those documents are

given to prison officials for mailing.” Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d 271, 272 (Ala. 2002); Holland v.

State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). Consequently, the prison mailbox rule applies

to a pro se Rule 32 petition filed in the state courts of Alabama. “Absent evidence to the contrary

in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [Johnson’s Rule 32 petition]

was delivered to prison authorities the day [Johnson] signed the petition. See Washington v. United

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

4

States Supreme Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction became final – and the oneyear limitation period for federal habeas corpus review began to run – 90 days after February

12, 2002, i.e., on May 13, 2002. See Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225, 1226-27 (11 Cir.

th

2000).

Title 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.” This court finds that the limitation period ran for 172 days after Johnson’s

conviction became final (on May 13, 2002) until his filing of a pro se Rule 32 petition in the

Circuit Court of Dale County on November 1, 2002, tolling the federal limitation period.3

The trial court denied the Rule 32 petition, and on March 19, 2004, the Alabama Court of

Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. A certificate of judgment was issued

on April 7, 2004. (Respondents’ Exhs E & F.) 

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 6
5

Under the circumstances outlined above, the period of limitation for Johnson to seek

federal habeas relief began to run again on April 8, 2004 – the first day following completion

of the state proceedings on his Rule 32 petition. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 337

(2007). At that time, 193 days remained in the federal period of limitation. Johnson did not

initiate any new state post-conviction proceedings during this period. Therefore, the federal

limitation period expired on October 18, 2004.

Johnson filed a second, third, and fourth Rule 32 petition on October 11, 2006; April

20, 2007; and August 7, 2008, respectively. (Respondents’ Exhs. G through J.) However,

the federal limitation period had expired well before any of these state petitions were filed.

Thus, the filing of these state petitions had no tolling effect on the federal limitation period,

as there was no remaining period to be tolled. “[E]ven ‘properly filed’ state-court petitions

must be ‘pending’ [during the one-year period of limitation] in order to toll the 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.” Webster, 199 F.3d

at 1259; see also Tinker, 255 F.3d at 1333, 1335 n.4.

As indicated above, the federal limitation period for Johnson to file a § 2254 habeas

petition expired on October 18, 2004. However, Johnson filed his habeas petition on

December 17, 2009. Under the circumstances of this case, then, it appears that the one-year

limitation period contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) expired well before Johnson filed the

instant petition. Accordingly, it is 

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 6
6

ORDERED that on or before February 25, 2010, Johnson 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) and for the other reasons asserted by the

respondents in their answer.

Done this 4 day of February, 2010. th

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01149-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 6 of 6