United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
B. BIGGERS SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on the pro se petition
of Steven Wayne Pierce for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved to dismiss
the petition as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(2). The petitioner has not responded to the motion,
and the deadline to do so has expired. The matter is ripe for
resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State's
motion to dismiss will be granted and the instant petition
for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as
and Procedural Posture
Wayne Pierce is in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections (MDOC) and housed at the East Mississippi
Correctional Facility in Meridian, Mississippi. He was
convicted for the sexual battery of a six-year old child in
the Circuit Court of Panola County, Mississippi. See
Exhibit A. On January 29, 2007, Mr. Pierce was
ordered to serve a term of twenty-five years in the custody
of the MDOC. See Exhibit B.
through counsel, appealed his conviction and sentence to the
Mississippi Supreme Court, which referred the case to the
Mississippi Court of Appeals. On February 5, 2008, the Court
of Appeals affirmed Pierce's conviction and sentence.
Pierce v. State, 2 So.3d 641 (Miss Ct. App. 2008),
reh'g denied, Dec. 9, 2008, cert.
denied, Feb. 26, 2009 (Cause No. 2007-KA-00124). On May
29, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied Pierce's
petition for certiorari review. See Exhibit D.
Pierce signed an “Application for Leave to Proceed in
the Trial Court” on November 14, 2017, which was
stamped as “filed” in that court on November 20,
2017. See SCR, Cause No. 2017-M-1593. On February
22, 2018, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed
Pierce's motion as both untimely and procedurally barred.
See Exhibit E. On April 5, 2018, the Mississippi
Supreme Court denied Pierce's subsequent petition for
rehearing under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure
(MRAP) 27(h), as not properly before the court. See
in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which
(d)(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
the 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 postconviction or other collateral review with respect
to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
counted toward ...