Mitchell v. Green

5 Citing cases

  1. Savoy v. Bishop

    Civil Action No. DKC 13-751 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2019)

    Judge Titus did not grant a certificate of appealability. (ECF Nos. 27; 28). Petitioner did not appeal the dismissal. The undersigned, in Mitchell v. Green, 2017 WL 4536001 (D.Md. October 11, 2017), also dismissed the petition as untimely, but did grant a certificate of appealability, recognizing that the issue was far from clear. The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal, finding that a motion for reconsideration of sentence did toll the time for filing a federal habeas petition.

  2. Peterson v. Green

    Civil Case No.: GJH-16-1148 (D. Md. Jul. 6, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that limited library and computer access did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling

    The above analysis presents an exceedingly generous construction of § 2244(d)(2), as it assumes that the Sentencing Motion tolls the accrual of the limitations period, which this Court has never held. See Mitchell v. Green, No. DKC-13-2063, 2017 WL 4536001 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2017) (discussing case law regarding whether Sentencing Motion can toll limitations period before declining to toll in that case, but granting a Certificate of Appealability on the issue). If the Sentencing Motion is not treated as tolling the limitations period, then the limitations period expired on December 6, 2009. Under this approach, tolling during the PCR proceedings would be irrelevant, as there would be no time remaining in the limitations period for § 2244(d)(2) to toll.

  3. Coleman v. Stouffer

    Civil Action No. TDC-14-3964 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2018)

    Id. Since Tasker, there has been an "unbroken chain of decisions from this district" that have followed this reasoning and declined to toll the limitations period. Mitchell v. Green, No. DKC-13-2063, 2017 WL 4536001, at *6 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2017). In Mitchell, however, the court, even in following Tasker, recognized that there has yet to be "dispositive ruling from the Fourth Circuit" on this issue and "only appellate courts can definitively resolve the issue."

  4. Bond v. Oliver

    Case No.: GJH-17-2481 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017)

    There is presently debate about whether this type of Motion qualifies as a state collateral proceeding capable of tolling the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). See Mitchell v. Green, No. DKC-13-2063, 2017 WL 4536001, at *3-8 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2017) (granting certificate of appealability as "to the question of whether a motion under Md. Rule 4-345 tolls the [statute's] one year statute of limitations for petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254" after discussing relevant case law and acknowledging that the issue is "open to significant debate"), appeal filed No. 17-7450 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017). However, even assuming that this type of Motion is capable of tolling the limitations period, it does not toll the limitations period in this case because the Motion was filed well outside the 90-day period permitted by Md. Rule 4-345, meaning that the Motion is not a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review."

  5. Scott v. Green

    Civil Action No. CCB-15-0503 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2016)

    This court has stayed several cases until Woodfolk is decided. See, e.g., Savoy v. Shearin, RWT-13-751 (D. Md); Mitchell v. Green, DKC-13-2063 (D. Md.); Wells v. Wolfe, CCB-14-985 (D. Md). The Respondents claim that the petition is nonetheless time-barred.