Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SIGEAL DWAYNE STOCKTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv00080/RS-AK

RICK ANGLIN,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

I. Background

Petitioner initiated this pro se case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Doc. 1, and paying the filing fee. The petition stems from

Petitioner’s nolo contendre plea to one count of grand theft in the Circuit Court for Bay County,

Florida, for which Petitioner was sentenced to one year of community control and four years of

probation. Doc. 1, see State v. Stockton, case no. 99002759CFMA, dkt. entry 8/8/05 (judgment). 

Petitioner did not appeal. Petitioner alleges that he did not pursue any postconviction relief in

the state court until January 20, 2010, when he filed a habeas corpus petition. Doc. 1 at 2. 

Petitioner alleges that his state habeas petition was denied, and he was advised to file a

postconviction motion pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. Id. Petitioner filed a motion on March

5, 2010; it was denied as untimely. Id. 

In the instant Petition, Petitioner contends that he was denied due process in connection

with his criminal proceedings because he has an alibi to the grand theft charge and his brother

was the actual perpetrator. Petitioner also contends that he was denied his right to the effective
Page 2 of 3

assistance of counsel when counsel advised him to plead to the charge. Id. 

II. Statute of Limitations

 Section 2254 petitions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). This limitations period runs from the latest of the following: the date on which the

state court judgment became final; the date on which an unconstitutional impediment which

prevented the applicant from filing is removed; the date on which the right asserted was

recognized by the United States Supreme Court and made retroactive on collateral review; or the

date on which the factual predicate for the claim could have been discovered by due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). Only subsection (A) is at issue in this case.

Petitioner’s conviction became final thirty days after entry of judgment, when the time for

filing a direct appeal elapsed. Thus, Petitioner’s conviction became final on or about September

8, 2005. Absent any state court post-conviction proceeding that would have tolled the federal

limitations period, Petitioner had until on or about September 8, 2006, to timely file his federal 1

habeas corpus petition, and the instant petition, filed on April 15, 2010, is clearly time-barred. 

Petitioner concedes that he did not pursue any state postconviction remedies until January

2010, when he filed a state habeas corpus petition. Doc. 1. At that point, the federal habeas

filing period had already elapsed. The state proceedings did not toll the federal habeas filing

period because there was nothing left to toll at the time that Petitioner commenced his state

postconviction proceedings.

Pursuant to § 2254 Rule 4, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court” the Court must dismiss the

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

1

Case No: 5:10-cv-00080-RS-AK
Page 3 of 3

petition and it is unnecessary to serve the Petition on the Respondent. Accordingly, for the

reasons set forth in this Order, the Petition is DISMISSED as time-barred. 

As amended effective December 1, 2009, § 2254 Rule 11(a) provides that “[t]he district

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant,” and if a certificate is issued “the court must state the specific issue or issues that

satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” The court finds no substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84,

(2000) (explaining how to satisfy this showing) (citation omitted). Therefore, a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

ORDERED on April 27, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10-cv-00080-RS-AK