Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01052/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01052-0/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

Although the petition was date-stamped “received” in this court on November 30, 2007, it

was signed by Strickland on November 19, 2007. 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). “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 [Strickland] signed

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY STRICKLAND, ) 

# 124708, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No.2:07cv1052-MHT

 ) [WO] 

RALPH HOOKS, WARDEN, 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 by state inmate Tommy Strickland (“Strickland”) on November 19, 2007.1

Strickland challenges a conviction for promoting prison contraband entered against him in

1986 by the Circuit Court of Elmore County, Alabama. That court sentenced Strickland on

March 4, 1986, to a term of 15 years’ imprisonment, split so that 10 years would be served

concurrently with an existing sentence and 5 years would be served consecutively to another

sentence being served by Strickland. In March 2003 (approximately 15 years after he was

sentenced), Strickland filed a notice of appeal challenging the 1986 conviction; however, the

appeal was dismissed as untimely by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Because his

Case 2:07-cv-01052-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 4
2

Subsection (d) of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

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

2

appeal was not timely, Strickland’s conviction was final by operation of law on April 15,

1986.

In accordance with the orders of this court, the respondents have filed an answer in

which they argue that Strickland’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), because Strickland

failed to file the petition within the one-year “grace period” allowed in this circuit.2

 The

respondents specifically assert that because Strickland’s conviction was final in 1986 – well

before the effective date of the AEDPA – he had until April 24, 1997, to file a timely § 2254

petition, as he filed no state post-conviction petition challenging his conviction during the

running of the limitation period. See Wilcox v. Florida Department of Corrections, 158 F.3d

1209, 1211 (11th Cir. 1998); Goodman v. United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir. 1998).

The respondents acknowledge that Strickland filed a state post-conviction petition pursuant

to Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, in January 2007. However, the

respondents maintain that this action has no impact on the running of the limitation period

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as the Rule 32 petition was filed and adjudicated by the

state courts well after the federal limitation period had expired. See 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 and evidentiary materials filed in this case, it appears

Case 2:07-cv-01052-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 4
3

that Strickland failed to file his § 2254 petition 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 Elmore County imposed the sentence

for the state conviction challenged by Strickland on March 4, 1986. Strickland filed an

untimely notice of appeal, which was dismissed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

Because he failed to properly undertake the direct appeal process, he was not entitled to

petition the United States Supreme Court for review of his conviction. By operation of law,

then, his conviction became final on April 15, 1986 – 42 days after imposition of sentence

– as that was the date on which his time to seek direct review expired. See Rule 4(b)(1),

Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure; Bridges v. Johnson, 284 F.3d 1201, 1202 (11th Cir.

2002).

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that Strickland’s conviction became final before

enactment of the AEDPA. Thus, if the AEDPA were applied retroactively, the one-year

limitation period contained in § 2244(d)(1)(A) would have expired in 1987. However, the

Eleventh Circuit has held that “application of the one-year time bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

to petitions of prisoners, like [Strickland], whose convictions became final long prior to the

effective date of the AEDPA ... ‘would be unfair, and impermissibly retroactive.’ [Goodman,

151 F.3d at 1337].” Wilcox, 158 F.3d at 1211. The Court has further held that prisoners in

this position must be allowed a reasonable period of time after enactment of § 2244(d)’s oneyear period of limitation to file their § 2254 petitions, and determined that “a reasonable

Case 2:07-cv-01052-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 4
4

time” is “one year from the AEDPA’s effective date.” Id. 

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.” Although Strickland filed a state post-conviction petition in January 2007, the

petition did not toll the one-year period of limitation applicable to the instant action, as the

state petition was filed well after the one-year federal limitation period has expired. This

court concludes, therefore, that the time allowed Strickland for filing a federal habeas petition

expired on April 24, 1997.

Strickland did not file his federal habeas petition until November 19, 2007 – over 10

years after expiration of the reasonable time period afforded to him under applicable law.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before February 20, 2008, Strickland shall show cause why

his federal habeas petition should not be dismissed as it was not filed within a reasonable

time after enactment of the AEDPA.

Done this 30th day of January, 2008.

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01052-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 4