Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-CV-73197-DT
January 29, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I. Introduction
Petitioner Anthony Bonner, a state prisoner currently in custody at the Huron Valley Men's Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner pleaded guilty to arson of a building and habitual offender-second offense in the Ingham County Circuit Court in 1992. He was sentenced to 6 to 15 years imprisonment. This matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's motion is granted and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
II. Procedural History
Following sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal as of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions. People v. Bonner, No. 160832 (Mich.Ct.App. Nov. 10, 1994) (unpublished). Petitioner then sought leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Bonner, 449 Mich. 865 (1995).
On October 3, 1996, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgement with the trial court, which was denied. People v. Bonner, No. 92-64453-FH (Ingham Co. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 1996). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 12, 1996, which was denied on November 26, 1996. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for failure to pursue the case in conformity with the court rules. People v. Bonner, No. 200137 (Mich.Ct.App. June 25, 1997).
On December 14, 1999, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment with the trial court, which was denied on April 24, 2000. Petitioner then filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion for relief from judgment on May 11, 2000, which was denied on May 25, 2000. See Docket Sheet for Ingham Co. Cir. Ct. Case No. 92-64453-FH.
Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, dated July 3, 2000, on July 31, 2000, asserting that his guilty plea was involuntary, that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty to an uncharged offense, that he was denied the right to appellate counsel, and that the trial court erred in refusing to allow withdrawal of his guilty plea. On December 1, 2000, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition, asserting that it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner has not filed a reply to Respondent's motion.
III. Discussion
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, became effective on April 24, 1996. The AEDPA governs the filing date for the habeas application in this case because Petitioner filed his application after the effective date of the AEDPA. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to include a new one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state court judgments. Matthews v. Abramajtys, 39 F. Supp.2d 871, 872 (E.D. Mich. 1999). In most cases, a prisoner is required to file a federal habeas petition within one year of completing direct review of the habeas claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The revised statute provides that:
(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).
In this case, Petitioner's convictions became final before the AEDPA's April 24, 1996 effective date. Prisoners whose convictions became final prior to the AEDPA's effective date are given a one-year grace period in which to file their federal habeas petitions. Austin v. Mitchell, 200 F.3d 391, 393 (6th Cir. 1999); accord Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Flores, 135 F.3d 1000, 1006 (5th Cir. 1998); Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 111-12 (3d Cir. 1998); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 745-46 (10th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Petitioner was required to file his federal habeas petition on or before April 24, 1997, excluding any time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or collateral review was pending in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Petitioner filed his state court motion for relief from judgment on October 3, 1996. He then pursued state court remedies until the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for failure to proceed in conformity with the court rules on June 25, 1997. Petitioner then had no state court motions for post-conviction or other collateral review pending in the state courts until he filed his motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment with the trial court on December 14, 1999.
Respondent asserts that the one-year limitations period expired, at the latest, six months and 24 days after the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal — well before Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment with the state trial court in December, 1999. Respondent thus contends that the limitations period expired in January, 1998 — and that the petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
This Court agrees with Respondent that the instant petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions. The limitations period began to run on April 24, 1996, the AEDPA's effective date, and ran until October 3, 1996, when Petitioner filed his state court motion for relief from judgment. At this juncture, 162 days of the limitations period had expired. The statute of limitations was then tolled while Petitioner pursued his state court remedies until June 25, 1997, when the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. Petitioner then had only 205 days, until January 15, 1998, to seek additional state court relief (and further toll the statute of limitations) or to file his federal habeas petition. Petitioner did not file his motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment with the state trial court until December 14, 1999 and did not attempt to submit the present petition until July 3, 2000, the date upon which he signed his habeas pleadings. Consequently, the instant habeas petition was not submitted within the applicable one-year limitations period.
Several courts have concluded that the limitations period is not a jurisdictional bar and may be subject to equitable modifications such as tolling. See, e.g., Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998); Miller v. New Jersey State Dept. of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 617-19 (3rd Cir. 1998); Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998); cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 210 (1998); Calderon, 128 F.3d at 1287; Thomas v. Straub, 10 F. Supp.2d 834, 835-36 (Duggan, E.D. Mich. 1998). Petitioner, however, has not established that the State created an obstacle to the filing of his application, that his claims are based upon newly-created rights or newly-discovered facts, or that the one-year period should otherwise be tolled due to extraordinary circumstances.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that Petitioner failed to file his habeas petition within the one-year limitations period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and that the statute of limitations precludes federal review of the petition. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.