IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

GREGORY C RAGLAND, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-108

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Petition under

28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

State Custody filed by Gregory C. Ragland, Sr., a pro se prisoner,

on April 8, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DISMISSES this habeas corpus petition because it is untimely and

DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

BACKGROUND

Gregory C. Ragland, Sr., is challenging his guilty plea and 20

year sentence for Battery as an Habitual Offender by the Madison

Circuit Court under cause number 48C01-0511-FC-440 on February 12,

2007. Ragland filed a direct appeal which concluded when the

Indiana Supreme Court denied his petition to transfer on April 5,

2007. Ragland v. State, 860 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

(table). He did not file a petition for certiorari to the United

States Supreme Court and the deadline for doing so expired on July

5, 2007. Though he filed a post-conviction relief petition, he

waited until November 10, 2011, to do so. DE 3 at 2. His original
habeas corpus petition in this case was signed and mailed on March

2, 2015. DE 1 at 15. 

DISCUSSION

Habeas Corpus petitions are subject to a strict one year

statute of limitations.

(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 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Question 16 on the habeas corpus form included the entire text

of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and asked Ragland to explain why the

petition was timely. He did not answer the question. However,

nothing in his petition indicates that state action prevented him

2
from filing this habeas corpus petition sooner or that the petition

is based on a newly recognized Constitutional right or newly

discovered evidence. Therefore §§ 2244(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D) are

not applicable to this case. 

Thus, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), the 1-year period of

limitation began when the judgment became final upon the expiration

of the time for seeking direct review when the deadline for filing

a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court

expired on July 5, 2007. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) and 30(1). The next

day, on July 6, 2007, the 1-year limitation period began. It ran

for one year and expired on July 7, 2008. See Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) (excludes the last day if it is Saturday,

Sunday, or a legal holiday). Though he would later file a postconviction relief petition on November 10, 2011, by then the

deadline had passed and could no longer be tolled. Thus, by the

time that this habeas corpus petition was filed on March 2, 2015,

it was nearly seven years late. 

Finally, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, the court must consider whether to grant a certificate

of appealability. When the court dismisses a petition on procedural

grounds, the determination of whether a certificate of

appealability should issue has two components. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). First, the petitioner must show that

reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the court was

correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 484. If the petitioner

meets that requirement, then he must show that reasonable jurists

3
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

for the denial of a constitutional right. Id. As previously

explained, this petition is untimely. Because there is no basis for

finding that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of this

procedural ruling or find a reason to encourage him to proceed

further, a certificate of appealability must be denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this

habeas corpus petition because it is untimely and DENIES a

certificate of appealability.

DATED: April 21, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

4