Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04058/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky R. Davenport
Appellant
Michael Kenney
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-4058

___________

Ricky R. Davenport, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

Michael Kenney, Warden, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2004

Filed: May 18, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Davenport appeals the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the District of Nebraska dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

as a mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). The district court

granted a certificate of appealability on Davenport’s claim that trial and appellate

counsel were ineffective for failing to raise a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge

to Davenport’s conviction for using a firearm in the commission of a felony. We

Appellate Case: 02-4058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2004 Entry ID: 1768297 
-2-

affirm the dismissal because the claim was untimely, and we modify the dismissal to

be with prejudice.

Davenport shot and killed another individual in a bar fight. He was later

convicted in Nebraska state court of manslaughter, using a firearm in the commission

of a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He received consecutive

sentences of 25 years, 20 years, and 20 years on the respective counts. See State v.

Davenport, No. A-94-009, 1994 WL 642698, at *1-2 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 1994).

The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Davenport’s conviction on direct appeal, see

id. at *17; denied a challenge to Davenport’s prior convictions in an order dated

January 21, 1997, see State v. Davenport, 5 Neb. App. 355, 559 N.W.2d 783 ( 1997);

and denied a motion for post-conviction relief filed in March 1998, see State v.

Davenport, No. A-98-571, 1999 WL 703624 (Neb. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 1999).

Davenport filed the instant federal habeas petition in February 2000, and filed a

motion to amend--to include the claim at issue in this appeal--on April 19, 2002.

We agree with the state that Davenport’s federal habeas petition was untimely

under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See Cross-Bey

v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.) (one-year grace period from AEDPA’s

enactment), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 442 (2003). Even assuming that the state waived

the limitations defense to Davenport’s original section 2254 petition by failing to

raise it in the state’s response to the petition, the state did not have the opportunity

to raise the defense in response to the claim at issue after the district court granted

leave to amend, because the court simultaneously dismissed the petition as a mixed

petition. In these circumstances, we conclude that the state did not waive the defense

as to the instant claim. Cf. Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir.

1997) (waiver can be found where state’s conduct is so consistent with intent to

relinquish statute-of-limitations defense that no other reasonable explanation for its

conduct is possible). Moreover, the claim did not relate back to the original petition,

see United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999), and Davenport’s

Appellate Case: 02-4058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2004 Entry ID: 1768297 
-3-

pro se status is not a basis for equitable tolling of the limitations period, see Kreutzer

v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 863 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim, but we

modify the dismissal to be with prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-4058 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2004 Entry ID: 1768297