Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Myers

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division

December 11, 2014

TERRY LEE ROBINSON, # 246309, Petitioner,
v.
WALTER MYERS, et al., Respondents.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on March 20, 2013, petitioner Terry Lee Robinson ("Robinson") challenges the 2006 judgment of the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, revoking his state probation.[1] The respondents argue that Robinson's petition is time-barred by the one-year federal limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court concludes that the petition is untimely and should be denied without an evidentiary hearing.

II. DISCUSSION

Controlling Statute of Limitations

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides the statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions and states:

(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).

Relevant State Court Proceedings


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.