UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

LEONARD COLEMAN, SR., ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:16-CV-036-JVB 

 ) 

SUPERINTENDENT ) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Leonard Coleman, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to 

challenge his convictions and 50 year sentence by the Tippecanoe Superior Court under cause 

number 79D02-0503-FB-18 on September 28, 2005. However, 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). 
2 

 Question 16 on the habeas corpus form included the entire text of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

That question asked Coleman to explain why the petition was timely. His response was, “Petitioner 

has filed everything in state court and was denied.” (DE 1 at 7.) Neither that response, nor anything 

else in the petition (or any of his other filings in this case, DE 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) indicates that 

this habeas corpus petition is based on a newly recognized Constitutional right or newly discovered 

evidence. Neither is there any indication that a state-created impediment prevented him from filing 

his federal petition on time. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the 1-year period 

of limitation began on the date when the judgment became final upon the expiration of the time 

for seeking direct review of his conviction and sentence. 

 In this case, Coleman’s conviction became final when the deadline expired for filing a 

petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals of Indiana denied the 

direct appeal on September 29, 2006. (DE 1 at 2.) The deadline for filing a petition to transfer 

expired on October 30, 2006. See Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 57(C) which provides that 

a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days. See also Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 

25(B). which provides that when the last day is a non-business day, the deadline expires the next 

business day. 

 The deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition expired one year later on October 30, 2007. 

Coleman filed a post-conviction relief petition on April 26, 2011. DE 1 at 2. However, by then the 

time for filing a habeas corpus petition had already expired and it was too late to toll the 1-year 

period of limitation. Moreover, filing the post-conviction relief petition did not “restart” the federal 

clock, nor did it “open a new window for federal collateral review.” De Jesus v. Acevedo, 567 F.3d 

941, 943 (7th Cir. 2009). Thus, when Coleman signed this habeas corpus petition on January 25, 

2016, it was more than eight years late. Because the petition is untimely, it must be dismissed. 
3 

 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 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. 

 For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this habeas corpus petition because it is untimely 

and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

SO ORDERED on June 22, 2016. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE