Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00303/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00303-1/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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER CHAPPELL, 

# 137810,

Petitioner,

v.

LEEPOSEY DANIELS, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-303-WKW

 [WO]

ORDER

On June 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 11), to 

which Petitioner Christopher Chappell filed a timely Objection (Doc. # 12). Upon an 

independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which 

objection is made, the Objection is due to be overruled, the Recommendation is due to be 

adopted, and Mr. Chappell’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be dismissed.

In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge outlined the temporal requirements 

of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and found that Mr. Chappell’s petition was filed outside the oneyear limitation for § 2254 petitions. Further, the Magistrate Judge determined that Mr. 

Chappell did not provide grounds for statutory or equitable tolling of the one-year 

limitation sufficient to make his petition timely. Mr. Chappell objects to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Recommendation, arguing that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was 

incompetent during the course of his 1984 prosecutions for first-degree rape, first-degree 

burglary, and second-degree burglary to the extent that he was unable to properly assist his 

Case 2:15-cv-00303-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 2
2

defense counsel. Moreover, Mr. Chappell contends that the state court improperly accepted 

his guilty pleas without first affording him a competency hearing. 

The arguments which form the basis for Mr. Chappell’s Objection (Doc. # 12) are 

not new. Rather, Mr. Chappell argued these points in his Response (Doc. # 10) to 

Respondents’ Answer (Doc. # 8), and the Magistrate Judge appropriately addressed Mr. 

Chappell’s arguments regarding equitable tolling in the Recommendation. As explained 

in the Recommendation, Mr. Chappell has failed to show that his delay in filing the present 

§ 2254 petition is the result of his incompetence. Because Mr. Chappell has not shown a 

causal connection between his alleged mental incompetence and the untimeliness of the 

petition, this court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of his challenge. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Chappell’s Objection (Doc. # 12) is OVERRULED. 

2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is ADOPTED.

3. Mr. Chappell’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is 

DENIED with prejudice and this case is DISMISSED as the petition is time-barred by the 

one-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

A final judgment will be entered separately. 

DONE this 13th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00303-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 2