Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00936/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00936-0/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 instant habeas petition was not “filed” in this court until October 3, 2005, the petition 1

was signed by the petitioner on September 28, 2005. A pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed on the date

it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams v.

United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir.

th th

1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume

that [Heath’s petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day he signed it . . .” Washington v. United

States, 243 F.3d 1299 (11 Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that September 28, 2005 th

should be considered the date of filing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ROY DAVID HEATH, #217344, )

 )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05cv936-MEF

)

G.C. GILES, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is now before the court on a petition for habeas corpus relief filed on

September 28, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this petition, Heath challenges his 1

convictions for distribution of controlled substances (two counts) and unlawful possession

of marijuana entered against him by the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama on April

9, 2001. These convictions became final by operation of law on January 29, 2002. The

respondents answered and filed documents relevant to a disposition of the issues raised in

this case. Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case, the court concludes that no

evidentiary hearing is required and that the petition is due to be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts.

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 6
2

It is clear from the evidentiary materials filed by the respondents that Heath’s

convictions became final in January 2002 -- after the effective date of the one-year statute

of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) which provides as follows:

(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 Supreme Court, if the 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 postconviction 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. 

 Therefore, Heath must have filed his § 2254 petition within one year of his

convictions becoming final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state post-conviction

petition was pending in the state courts. The respondents concede that Heath filed three postconviction petitions in the state courts which tolled the limitation period. However, the

respondents argue that even allowing a tolling of the limitation period during the pendency

of the three post-conviction petitions, the limitation period expired prior to Heath filing this

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 6
 Heath filed post-convictions petitions on May 31, 2002, August 28, 2002, and January 16, 2003. 2

 Where further action is not undertaken upon a ruling by the appellate court, the certificate of

3

judgment issues eighteen (18) days after the issuance of the court’s opinion. ALA. R. APP. PR. 41(a).

3

federal habeas petition. 

2

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) directs that the limitation period for filing a § 2254 petition

begins to run on the date when the time for seeking direct review of a challenged conviction

expires. Heath pleaded guilty and was convicted of two counts of distribution of a controlled

substance and one count of possession of marijuana in the Circuit Court of Russell County,

Alabama on April 9, 2001. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent terms of

thirty years imprisonment on each count. Heath filed a direct appeal which the Alabama

Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently dismissed prior to the issuance of an opinion

pursuant to Heath’s request to dismiss the appeal. On January 29, 2002, the Alabama Court

of Criminal Appeals issued the certificate of judgment. Since Heath did not fully pursue his 3

direct appeal and failed to seek relief from the Alabama Supreme Court, he waived his right

to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Consequently, the time

for seeking relief on his convictions lapsed upon expiration of the time for filing a request

for rehearing in the appellate court – fourteen (14) days from the issuance of the order by the

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing his appeal. ALA. R. APP. PR. 39(c)(1). See

also Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225 (11 Cir. 2000); SUP. CT. R. 13.1 (a petition for writ of th

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court may only be filed to review a judgment or order

entered by a state court of last resort and must be filed within ninety (90) days of the action

undertaken by the aforementioned state court.) Thus, the court concludes that Heath’s

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 6
4

conviction became final, at the latest, on January 29, 2002. Therefore, he had one year from

that date to file a federal habeas corpus petition, unless the court finds that the limitation

period was tolled due to a pending state post-conviction application for relief. 

“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction relief

or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not

be counted toward any period of limitation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Heath filed his first

Rule 32 petition on May 31, 2002. At that time, 121 days of the one-year limitation period

had elapsed between the date his conviction became final and the filing of his initial Rule

32 petition in the Circuit Court of Russell County. Upon the filing of his Rule 32 petition,

the limitation period was tolled while the petition remained pending in the state courts. The

trial court denied this petition on July 16, 2002. Heath then filed a notice of appeal with the

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on August 23, 2002. On January 2, 2003, Heath filed

a motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice. On January 7, 2003, the Alabama Court of

Criminal Appeals issued the certificate of judgment dismissing Heath’s appeal. 

During the pendency of his first Rule 32 petition, Heath filed a second Rule 32

petition on August 28, 2002. The trial court denied this petition on March 13, 2003. Heath

did not appeal this decision. While his second Rule 32 petition was pending before the trial

court, Heath filed a third Rule 32 petition on January 16, 2003. The Circuit Court of Russell

County denied this petition on June 12, 2003, and Heath did not appeal this denial.

Consequently, these Rule 32 petitions tolled the running of the limitations period until July

24, 2003 – forty-two days after the issuance of the trial court’s order denying Heath’s Rule

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 4 of 6
 The court notes that the limitation period “may be equitably tolled” on grounds apart from those

4

specified in the habeas statute “when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that

are both beyond his control and unavoidable with diligence.” Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271

(11 Cir. 1999); see also Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11 Cir. 2000). However, there is nothing before

th th

the court which demonstrates the presence of “extraordinary circumstances” to warrant an “equitable tolling”

of the limitation period.

5

32 petition as this is the date upon which Heath’s time to appeal the trial court’s adverse

ruling expired. See ALA. R. APP. PR. 4(b)(1). Thus, as of July 24, 2003, 121 days of the

limitation period had run and Heath had 244 days remaining in the limitation period within

which to file his federal habeas petition. Consequently, the court concludes that the one

limitation period within which Heath had to file a federal habeas petition expired on March

24, 2004. Heath filed the instant habeas corpus petition on September 28, 2005. Under the 4

circumstances of this case as outlined herein, the one-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1) expired well over a year before Heath filed his § 2254 petition. 

On November 10, 2005, the court ordered Heath to show cause why his petition

should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) for his failure to file within the

applicable one-year limitation period. After being given an opportunity to show cause why

the petition should not be dismissed for failure to file within the one-year limitation period,

Heath has filed nothing in response to the court’s order. Thus, the court finds that the oneyear limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) expired on March 24, 2004, well over one

year before Heath filed his federal habeas petition. Because Heath did not file in this court

until September 28, 2005, his petition is time-barred and this court may not address the

merits. The court further concludes that the petitioner has failed to show cause why his

petition should not be dismissed.

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 5 of 6
6

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the

Magistrate Judge that the petition for habeas corpus relief be denied and that this case be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). It is further the RECOMMENDATION of the

Magistrate Judge that the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the petitioner. It is

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

or before May 2, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that

this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 18 day of April, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00936-MEF-CSC Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 6 of 6