Opinion ID: 77913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Impediment to Filing

Text: Johnson first argues that state action created impediments that prevented him from filing his § 2254 petitions, and thus his AEDPA clocks did not begin to run until the impediments were removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B); Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1249 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2033, 167 L.Ed.2d 763 (2007). Johnson alleges three state-created impediments: (1) the turmoil surrounding Florida's implementation of its post-conviction representation system, which delayed the appointment of Johnson's original state post-conviction counsel until August 9, 1998; (2) the ineffective assistance of Johnson's original state post-conviction counsel in not filing Rule 3.850 motions; and (3) the State's objection, on privilege and attorney-work-product grounds, to Johnson's current counsel's request, filed in February 2000, for access to documents needed in preparing Johnson's state post-conviction filings. [3] The problem for Johnson is the United States Supreme Court has held that prisoners in capital cases have no constitutional right to post-conviction counsel. See Lawrence v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1085, 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007) ( Lawrence II ), aff'g Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir.2005) ( Lawrence I ); Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 10, 12, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 2771-72, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555-57, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 1993-94, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). Thus, a state's delay in appointing such counsel is not a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, as required by § 2244(d)(1)(B). And this Court has already held that incompetent performance by appointed counsel is not the type of State impediment envisioned in § 2244(d)(1)(B). Lawrence I, 421 F.3d at 1226. [4] Later, in Gordon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 479 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.2007), this Court reaffirmed that the failure of court-appointed counsel to file more promptly [for state post-conviction relief does not qualify as] an impediment to filing created by State action, within the meaning of § 2244(d)(1)(B). Likewise, Johnson has not established that the State's objection to the production of certain documents constituted an illegal impediment to filing his § 2254 petitions. To delay the running of the statute of limitations, § 2244(d)(1)(B) requires state action that both violat[ed] . . . the Constitution or laws of the United States and prevented [the prisoner] from filing his federal petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B). Johnson has pointed to no federal statute or constitutional provision that the State's objections violated. Johnson also has not demonstrated how the State's action actually prevented him from timely filing his § 2254 petitions. In any event, the state trial court conducted an in camera review of the documents on April 28, 2000, and immediately made available to Johnson the first three categories of documents he had requested. [5] As to the remaining documents, the state court ordered that the NCIC report be produced unless the State objected within five days. [6] The state court refused disclosure of the grand jury memorandum or the State's Attorney notes, although the court reviewed the latter for potential Brady [7] violations. The state court declined to produce the police reports at that time because the state claimed that a version of them, redacted to remove victim addresses and phone numbers, had already been produced in discovery to Johnson's trial counsel, and Johnson's current counsel had not yet obtained and reviewed the file from Johnson's trial counsel. In fact, Johnson has never identified to this Court a single document to which he did not ultimately gain access, much less how its lack prevented him from filing either of his § 2254 petitions. [8] Johnson's factual allegations fall far short of the standard required to invoke § 2244(d)(1)(B). Therefore, the state impediment provision does not apply, and the one-year statute of limitations began to run on the date Johnson's convictions became final in 1998.