Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Mills v. Myers
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
May 24, 2019
ANTAVIS DAVON MILLS, # 285364, Petitioner,
v.
WALTER MYERS, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Stephen M. Doyle United States Magistrate Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
case is before the Court on a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by
Alabama inmate Antavis Davon Mills on April 20, 2017. (Doc.
1).[1]Mills challenges his 2012 Dale County
convictions for attempted murder and felony murder, for which
he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 33 years in prison.
In his petition, Mills claims his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to subpoena a witness who he says
would have provided favorable testimony for him at trial.
(Doc. 1) at 5. Respondents argue that Mills' petition is
time-barred under the federal limitation period. (Doc. 9) at
4-5, 12. The Court agrees and finds that Mills' petition
should be denied without an evidentiary hearing and this case
should be dismissed with prejudice.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
AEDPA's One-Year Limitation Period
Title
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) 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).
B.
State ...