Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-01101/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-01101-0/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)

---

Subsection (d) was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the 1

“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

(continued...)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERREKO DEMESE THOMAS, )

 # 220470, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:10cv1101-ID

 ) (WO) 

FRANK ALBRIGHT, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

O R D E R

The respondents have filed an answer (Doc. No. 10) in which they argue that the pro

se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Terreko

Demese Thomas (“Thomas”) 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 1

Case 1:10-cv-01101-MEF-SRW Document 11 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 4
(...continued) 1

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

the convictions Thomas challenges became final in May 2009 – after the effective date of the

statute of limitations – Thomas must have filed her habeas petition within one year of the

convictions’ becoming final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state postconviction petition related to the convictions was pending in the state courts. The

respondents acknowledge that, after she was convicted, Thomas filed a post-conviction

petition pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, the

respondents maintain that the federal limitation period expired prior to Thomas’s filing of

the Rule 32 petition and that, consequently, her filing of the Rule 32 petition had no effect

on the running of the limitation period. See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11 Cir.

th

2001). Upon review of the materials filed in this case and the law of this Circuit, it appears

that Thomas’s § 2254 petition is precluded from review by this court because it was not filed

Case 1:10-cv-01101-MEF-SRW Document 11 Filed 02/07/11 Page 2 of 4
The state trial court denied Thomas’s Rule 32 petition on January 3, 2011. 2

3

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 Thomas

was convicted and sentenced on April 1, 2009. Thomas did not file a direct appeal.

Therefore, her convictions became final by operation of law on May 13, 2009, 42 days after

she was sentenced. See Ala.R.App.P. 4(b)(1); Bridges v. Johnson, 284 F.3d 1201, 1202 (11th

Cir. 2002). Under the circumstances, then, the one-year period of limitation for Thomas to

seek federal habeas relief ended on May 13, 2010. However, Thomas did not file the instant

§ 2254 petition until December 26, 2010, after the limitation period had expired. Although

Thomas filed a Rule 32 petition in the state trial court on or around December 7, 2010, that 2

filing did not toll the federal limitation period, which had already expired before Thomas

filed the Rule 32 petition. Tinker, 255 F.3d at 1333. 

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 before Thomas filed the instant petition.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before February 28, 2011, Thomas shall show cause why

her 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

Case 1:10-cv-01101-MEF-SRW Document 11 Filed 02/07/11 Page 3 of 4
The respondents also argue that the claim in Thomas’s petition has not been fully exhausted 3

through available state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

4

the respondents in their answer.3

Done this 7 day of February, 2011. th

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01101-MEF-SRW Document 11 Filed 02/07/11 Page 4 of 4