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.

Morton v. Gilbert

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

November 28, 2017

CECIL L. MORTON, Petitioner,
v.
MARGARET GILBERT, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Dkt. 16. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, objections, and is fully advised.

         Petitioner files this petition, challenging his 1994 rape, robbery and burglary convictions. Dkt. 1. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Dkt. 8. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed as untimely. Dkt. 16. It also recommends denial of a certificate of appealability. Id.

         The facts are in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 16, at 1-3), and are adopted here. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 17. Petitioner's objections do not provide a basis to reject the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation should be adopted and the petition dismissed.

         DISCUSSION

         A. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND STATUTORY TOLLING

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), petitioners have one year to file a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It provides:

         (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 ...

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.