Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10423
I n R e : DE RR I CKLAMONE J OHNS ON M o v a n t .

O n M ot i on f

orO r derA ut hor i zi ng Fi l i ng an d C on si derati on of Secon d P et i t i on f

or W r i tof H abeas C or pus under28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 an d f or Stay of

E xecuti on
B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * P eti ti on er-A p p e ll a n t D errickL a m on e J oh n son f i l edthis l a st- m i n u te m ot i on f

or authori zati on t o f i l e a success iv e h a b e as petit i on an d f or a s t ay of executi on based on a cl ai m t h at h e i s m en t al l y ret arded an d thu s i n el i gibl e f or t h e death p en al t y u n der A tk in s v . V ir g in ia , 536 U
. S. 304 ( 2002)

. W e a r e s a t is fi e dth a tth is n e w c la im is ti m e -b a r r e d , s o w e d e n yp e t it io n e r ’s
m ot i on f

ora s t ay o f

ex ec ut i on and deny a ut hor i zat i on t o f i l e a suc c es sive habeas pe t i t i o n.
I. Jo hnson w as c o nvic t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d t o de at h f o rm ur de r i ng LaTaus ha Curry. The Te xa s Cour to f Cr i m i nalAppe al s a f f i r m e d Jo hns o n’ s c o nvic t i o n a nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10423

2 s e n te n c e o n J a n u a r y3 0 , 2 0 0 2
. J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 68 S. W
. 3d6 44 (Tex
. Cr i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ). J oh n son didn ot p eti ti on the S u p rem e C ou rt f or a w ri t of

certi ora ri. C on current w i t h h i s d i recta pp eal , J oh n son f il ed an app l i cat i on f

or hab eas reli ef i n t h e tr i alcourton O ct ober 22, 200 1. O n A u gu st14, 200 3, t h e t ri alcourt ent er ed an o r deradopt i ng t he St at e’ s pro pos ed f i ndi ngs reco m m endi ng t hat rel i ef on Joh n son’ s ap pl i cat i on be den i ed. T h e C ou rtof C ri m i n alA pp eal s th en ad opted t h e tri alj u dg e’ s recom m en da t i on , a n d den i ed h abea s r el i ef on O ct ober 8 , 2 0 0 3
. N ext, Joh n son f

i l ed h i s h abea s p et i t i on i n federaldi st ri ctcourt . Th e l ow er court den i ed h abea s r el i e f a n d d ism i ssed hi s pet i t i on w i t h prej u di ce. John son t i m ely a p pea l ed an d the l ow er c ou rtden i ed h i s r equ estf or a C O A
. John son peti t i on ed the U n i t ed S t ates S u prem e C ou rtf or c ert i orarirevi ew on D ecem ber 2 0 , 2 0 0 8
. T h e co u r t d e n ie dce r tio r a r i o n M a r c h 9 , 2 0 0 9
. Johnso n v. Q uart er m an , — S
. C t.

— , 2 0 0 9 W L 5 7 8 7 5 2 (M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). O n A pri l28, 200 9, Joh n son f i l ed a su bsequ en t s ta te ha beas ap pl i cat i on w i t h t h e T exas C ou rtof C ri m i n alA pp eal s r ai si n g, f or th e f i rstt i m e, an asser t i on t hathi s e xe c ut i o n woul d v i o l at e t he pr o hibit i o n a ga i ns tt he e xe c ut i o n o f t he m e nt all y r e t ar de d as s e tf o r t h i n At ki ns , sup ra . H ow eve r , the C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s f

ound t hatJo hnson fai l ed t o m ake a pri m a fac i e ca seof m ent al ret arda t i on an d otherw i se fai l i n g t o m eetthe requ i rem en t s of A rt i cl e 11. 071 Sec. 5
. Ex pa r t e J o hns o n, 56, 947 - 02 (Tex. C ri m . A pp . A pri l 29, 200 9) (u n pu bl i shed or der)

. Th e i nst ant m ot i on f or aut hor i zat i on t o f

i l e as ucc es sive fede r alhabeas pet i t i on f

oll ow ed o n A pril29, 2009. Pet i t i oner i s sc hedul ed t o b e e xec ut ed t oday, A pril30, 2009. T h e fact s of

t h e petit i on er’ s bru t alsexu ala ssaultan d m u rder of25-yearo l d La Taus ha C u rry on Janua r y 21 , 1 99 9 hav e b e e n s e tf o r t h i n de t aili n o ur e a r lie r o p in io n a n d th e o p in io n o f th e T e x a s C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls
. W e w ill n otrepeat t h em here.N o. 09- 10423

3 S om e of t he r e l e va ntda t e s ha veb e e n s e tf o r t h a bo ve . W e r e pe att h ese d a t e s a n do t h e r s i n t h e t i me l i n e s e tf o r t h b e l o w: N ovem ber19 ,19 99: Jo hns o n s e nt e nc e d t o de at h. O ct ober22 ,20 01: Joh n son f i l es s t ate pet i t i on f

or w ritof

ha beas. Janu ar y 30 ,20 02: T e x . C o u r to f C r i mi n a lA p p e a l s (“ T C C A” ) a f f i r ms J o h n s o n ’ s co n v ic tio n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Jun e 2 0,20 02: U
. S
. Su prem e C ou rti ssues At ki ns . O ct ober8,20 03: T C C Ad e n ies h a b e a s r e li e f. February11 ,20 04: T C C Am odi f i es t h e “t w o- f

orum rul e, ” w h i ch requ i red di sm i ss alof

a s t at e w r i tors ucc es sive w r i tif a f ede r al pro c ee di ng w as pendi ng, ev en if t hatpr oc ee di ng w as s ta y e d
. Ex p ar t eSof f ar , 143 S. W
. 3d 804, 804 (Tex. C rim
. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). M ay 17 ,20 04: J oh n son f i l es first f

ed era lw ri t. Sept em ber18 ,20 07: F ed era lw ri t de n i edbydistri ct cou rt. D ec em ber2,20 07: D is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie s m o tio n fo rn e w tr ia l. A pri l7,20 08: J oh n son see k s C O Af rom F i fth C i rcu i t. O ct ober2,20 08: Fif t h Cir c u i td e n i e s COA. Janu ar y 16 ,20 09: E xec ut i on dat e s etf orA pril30, 2009. M ar ch 9,20 09: U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r td e n ie s c e r tto J o h n s o n ’s c h a l l e n g i n gt h e F i f

t h Cir c u i t ’ s d e n y i n gh i s COA. A pri l28 ,20 09: J o h n s o n a t t e m p t s t o f i l e s u c c e s s iv e wr i twi t h T CCA ba s e d o n At ki nscl ai m s. A pri l29 ,20 09: T C C Aden i es s u bsequ en tw ritbecau se John son fai l ed to m a k e ap r i m a fa c ie ca s e o f m e n ta l re ta r d a tio n . Jo hns o n f

i l e s t he c ur r e ntm o t i o n.N o. 09- 10423

4 II. B ased on t h e above ti m el i n e, iti s cl ear t h at pet i t i on er’ s m ot i on i s barred b y th e on e-ye a r l i m i tati on pe ri odof th e A n titerror i sm an dE ff ective D ea th P en al t y A ct(“A E D P A” ) , 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2244 ( d), w h i ch provides: ( d)( 1) A1- year peri od of li m i t ati on sh al la pp l y t o a n app l i cat i on f or a w r i to f

ha be as c o r pus b y a pe r s o n i n c us t o dypurs uantt o t he j udg m e nto f

aSt at e c o ur t . The l i m i t at i o n pe r i o d s hallr un f r o m t he la te st o f-- (A) t he da t e on w hi c h t he j udg m e ntb e c am e f i nalb y t he c o n c l u s i o n o f

d i r e c tr e v i e w o rt h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e t i me f o rs e e k i n gs u c h r e v i e w; ( B ) t he dat e o n w hi c h t he i m pedi m entt o f i l i ng an ap pli c at i o n c r e at e d b y St at e act i o n i n v i o l at i o n o f t he C o n s tit u tio n o rla w s o f th e U n ite dS ta te s is re m o v e d , if th e a p p lica n t w a s p rev en tedf rom f i l i n g b y su ch S tate ac t i o n; ( C ) t h e date on w h i ch the constit u t i on alri gh tasser t ed wa s i n i t i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e S u p r e m e Co u r t , i f t he ri gh tha s been n ew l y recogni zed byt h e Su prem e C ou rt and m ade r et r oac t ively appl i c abl e t o c as es on c oll at er al revi ew ; or (D ) th e d a te o n w h ic h th e fa c tu a l p r e d ic a te o f th e cla im orc l ai m s pre se nt ed c oul d haveb ee n di sc ove r ed thro ugh t h e exerci se of

du e di l i gen ce. (2) T h e ti m e d u r in gw h i ch a p rop erly fil edap p l i ca ti on f or S tate po s t
- c o nvic t i o n o ro t he rc o l l at e r alr e vi e w w i t h r e s pe c tt o t he perti n en tj u dg m en tor cl ai m i s pen di n g sha l l n ot be coun t ed tow ard anype r i o d o f

l i m i t at i o n und e rt hi s s ubs e c t i o n. 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d). I n t hi s c as e , t he o ne - ye arl i m i t at i o n peri od beg an to ru n un der § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(C ) o n J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , th e d a te o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in At ki ns , a nd e xp i r e d o n J une 2 0, 2 00 3, t he o ne - ye ara nnive r s ar y o f t hatde c i s i o n.N o. 09- 10423

5 In re H earn , 376 F. 3d 447, 456 n. 11 ( 5t h C i r . 2004)

. H ow eve r , on Jun e 2 0, 2002, w he n At ki ns w as dec i de d, pet i t i o ne r ’ s st at e habe as appli c at i o n w as pe ndi ng and w as not deci ded u n t i l O ct ober 8, 200 3. T h i s i s r el evan tbecau se t h e t i m e i s not cou n tedtow a rdthe l i m i tati on p eriod w h i l e apr op erly fil edap p l i ca ti on f or sta te post- convic t i on reli ef on the perti n en tcl ai m i s pen di n g. John son’ s li m i t ati on per i od ther ef

ore ex pi r ed o n O c t obe r8, 2004, one ye araf t erhi s st at e habe as a p p li ca tion w a s d e n ied b y th e sta te co u rt. 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2). J o h n s o n ’s fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e tit i o n d o e s n o t t o ll th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . D uncan v. W a lk e r , 533 U
. S
. 167 , 181 –82 ( 200 1)

. C on sequ en t l y, an y petit i on Joh n son n ow f i l es c onc er ni ng At ki ns w oul d be m or e t han f ouryear s pas tthe O c t obe r8, 2004 e xp i r at i o n o f

hi s l i m i t at i o ns pe r i o d. M ore ov er, th i s C ou rt ha s n ev er h eld th a t A t kins cl ai m s are som eh ow ex em p t f

rom the l i m i tati on s p eriod
. T o th e con trary , this C ou rt ha s h eld th a t a su cces sive fed era lpe titi on ba sed on m en tal retard a ti on cl a i m s i s su bj ect to § 2 2 4 4 (d)’s o n e -y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , a n de q u ita b le t o llin gis a v a ila b le o n ly i n “rare a n de xtra ord i n a ryci rcu m stan ces.” In re W i l son , 442 F. 3d 872, 877–78 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); In re L e w is , 4 8 4 F. 3 d 79 3 , 79 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. A l t h o u g h we n ot ed that t h i s C ou rtrec ogn i zed a l i m i t ed excepti on t o p e ti t i on ers w h o w ere u n r e p r e s e n te db yco u n s e la n dco n s tr a in e db yth e T e x a s tw o -fo r u m ru le , In re W i l son , 442 F. 3d at875–76 (c i t i ng In re H earn , 3 8 9 F .3d1 2 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 )),
n ei t h er of

t h ese cond i t i on s app l y t o Joh n son . F i rst , Joh n son h as been represented by federalha beas coun selat every st age of hi s post-c on vi ct i on pro c ee di ngs and has had the s am e c ounse l si nce bef or e hi s f i r stf ede r alw r i tw as deni ed. F u rt her m or e, t he Texas t w o- f or um r ul e w as r enounce d by the Texas C ou rtof

C ri m i n alA pp eal s on F ebru ary 11, 200 4 , m o n th s bef ore John son f

i l ed h is fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e tit io n . See Ex par t e Sof far , 143 S. W
. 3d 804, 804 (Tex. C rim
. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( m o d ifyin gth e tw o -for u m ru le to “p e rm it co n sid e ra tion of a sub sequ en tst ate w rit. . . if t h e federalcourtw i t h j u ri sdi ct i on over a parall elN o. 09- 10423

6 w ri t en ters a n or d e rs ta yin g it s p roce ed i n gs to all ow the h a b ea s ap p l i ca n t t o pu rsue h i s u n exh au st ed c l ai m s i n T exas st ate c ou rt” )

. Th ereaf t er, a petit i on er w as notr equi r ed t o abandon hi s or i gi nalfede r alhabeas c l ai m s t o pur sue an At ki ns c l ai m i n s t at e c o ur t . Eve n if w e w e r e t o g iveJ o hns o n o ne y e arf r o m t he da t e E x par t e Sof

farw as dec i ded, orunt i lFebr u a ry1 1, 2005, hi s suc c es sive p eti ti on w ou l dstil lbe u n ti m ely. A ccord i n gly, J oh n son fa i l edto m ee t his st atutor y dea dl i n e, an d h i s At ki ns c l ai m i s t i m e - ba r r e d. J o h n s o n is n o t e n tit le dto e q u ita b le to llin g . “T h e d o c tr in e o f e q u ita b le t ol l i n g i s app l i ed rest ri ct ivel y an d, as w e ha ve h el d repea t edl y, i s enterta ined o n lyinca s e s p r e s e n tin g‘r a r e a n de x c e p tio n a l cir c u m s ta n c e s w h e r e it is n ece ssa ryto pre serv e aplain tiff' s cl a i m s w h en stri ct ap p l i ca ti on of th e sta tu te of li m i tati on s w ou l dbe i n eq u i tab l e.’” In re W i l son , 4 42 F. 3da t8 75 ( quo t i ng F ie r r o v . C o c k r e ll , 294 F
. 3 d 6 7 4, 682 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) )

. H er e, Jo hnson has pr o vi de d nor e as o n f o rm i s s i ng t he de ad l i ne b y ye ar s , m uc h l e s s ara r e a nd excepti on alone. A s th i s C ou rtha s l on g st ated, “ ‘ [ e] qu i t y i s not i n t en ded f or th ose w h o sl ee p on the i r ri gh ts. ’” I d. ( quot i ng F i sher v. Joh n son , 174 F. 3d 710, 7 1 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 )). F or th e above reason s w e den y Joh n son’ s M o t i o n f o rO r de rAu t h ori z i ng F i l i n g an d C on si dera ti on of Secon d P et i t i on f

or W ritof

H abea s C orpu s un der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254
. W e al so den y a st ay of executi on . DE NI ED
.