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.

Wheeler v. Banks

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division

February 9, 2018

JOHNNIE EARL WHEELER PETITIONER
v.
JACQUELYN BANKS RESPONDENT

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          DAVID BRAMLETTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball9');">9;s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] that the Court dismiss with prejudice Johnnie Earl Wheeler9');">9;s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Wheeler9');">9;s Objection [Doc. 9');">9] to that Report and Recommendation.

         Magistrate Judge Ball recommends that the Court dismiss Wheeler9');">9;s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because it is untimely under the one-year limitation period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 19');">99');">96 (AEDPA) and not subject to equitable tolling. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Wheeler9');">9;s Objection, and applicable statutory and case law, the Court finds as follows:

         I. BACKGROUND

         Wheeler is serving a life sentence for murder in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Wheeler petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus after the Mississippi Parole Board revoked his parole.[1] Although Wheeler9');">9;s parole revocation became final on March 19');">9, 2015, Wheeler did not file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus until April 26, 2017 - over twenty-five months later.

         Respondent Jacquelyn Banks moved to dismiss Wheeler9');">9;s petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). And Magistrate Judge Ball recommends that the Court grant Respondent9');">9;s motion and dismiss Wheeler9');">9;s petition with prejudice.

         Magistrate Judge Ball9');">9;s Report and Recommendation concludes that Wheeler9');">9;s petition is untimely under the AEDPA9');">9;s one-year limitation period because it was filed on April 26, 2017, more than one year after the parole board revocation Wheeler sought to challenge became final. Equitable estoppel does not toll the AEDPA9');">9;s one-year limitation period, Magistrate Judge Ball reasons, because Wheeler fails to show the “rare and exceptional circumstances” required to justify tolling the statute.

         Wheeler objects to Magistrate Judge Ball9');">9;s Report and Recommendation. Wheeler appears to argue that the AEDPA9');">9;s one-year limitation period does not apply to decisions of a parole board.[2][Doc. 9');">9, p. 8] Wheeler also argues, in a single, conclusory sentence, that the AEDPA9');">9;s one-year limitation period cannot apply to him because he is actually innocent of the shoplifting charges that led the Mississippi Parole Board to revoke his parole. [Doc. 9');">9, p. 8]

         II. DISCUSSION

         Because Wheeler fails to pinpoint the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which he objects, the Court reviews de novo the entirety of Magistrate Judge Ball9');">9;s Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

         A. Timeliness

         Magistrate Judge Ball correctly concludes that Wheeler9');">9;s petition is untimely under the AEDPA9');">9;s one-year limitation period. Under the AEDPA, a state prisoner such as Wheeler must file a federal petition for habeas corpus within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A).

         The AEDPA9');">9;s limitation period began to run when Wheeler9');">9;s parole revocation became final on March 19');">9, 2015. And the period expired one year later, on March 19');">9, 2016. The period was not tolled between March 19');">9, 2015 and March 19');">9, 2016 by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because Wheeler at no point presented a “properly filed application for State post-conviction relief or other collateral review.”

         To the extent Wheeler objects to the Report and Recommendation&#39');">9;s conclusion that his petition was untimely filed, ...


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.