Patrick v. Thomas
1:16-cv-00525
| S.D. Ala. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Walter Patrick was convicted of first-degree sodomy in Washington County, Alabama, on April 21, 2004, and sentenced to 30 years. Appeals concluded with Alabama courts on December 9, 2005.
- Patrick filed a state Rule 32 petition on August 28, 2009 (after AEDPA’s one-year period expired); state courts ultimately addressed it and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed denial on August 7, 2015.
- Patrick filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 3, 2016 (operative petition Doc. 9), asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence (polygraph and victim recantation), and claiming actual innocence.
- Respondent asserted the petition was untimely under AEDPA. The Magistrate Judge found the AEDPA limitations period began March 10, 2006 (90 days after state judgment became final) and expired March 10, 2007.
- Court rejected statutory tolling because Patrick’s Rule 32 was filed after AEDPA’s limitations period had expired, and rejected equitable tolling for lack of extraordinary diligence.
- The court also found Patrick failed to meet the Schlup actual-innocence gateway (polygraph and recantation were not sufficiently new or reliable) and recommended dismissal with prejudice, denial of a COA, and denial of IFP status on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AEDPA timeliness: when did one-year period begin and did petition comply? | Patrick contends limitations ran from end of state collateral review (Aug. 7, 2015) so federal petition is timely. | Limitations began March 10, 2006 (finality of direct review + 90 days); petition filed 2016 is untimely. | Held untimely: AEDPA period began March 10, 2006 and expired March 10, 2007. |
| Statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) | Rule 32 pending tolled AEDPA period; Rule 32 decision in 2015 makes habeas timely. | Rule 32 was filed after AEDPA’s one-year expired, so it cannot statutorily toll or revive the limitations period. | Held no statutory tolling: belated Rule 32 does not revive expired AEDPA period. |
| Equitable tolling | (No substantial equitable-tolling argument presented) | Even if alleged, no extraordinary circumstances or due diligence shown to justify equitable tolling. | Held not entitled to equitable tolling. |
| Actual-innocence gateway (Schlup/McQuiggin) | New evidence: polygraph and victim recantation; asserts actual innocence to overcome AEDPA bar. | Evidence is not newly discovered or reliable enough; recantation appears coerced and polygraph existed at trial. | Held Schlup/McQuiggin gateway not satisfied; evidence insufficient to show no reasonable juror would convict. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCloud v. Hooks, 560 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2009) (when state-court judgment becomes final for AEDPA purposes)
- Moore v. Crosby, 321 F.3d 1377 (11th Cir. 2003) (post-conviction filings made after AEDPA deadline do not toll or revive the limitations period)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual-innocence gateway may overcome AEDPA time bar in rare cases)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for entitling a petitioner to an actual-innocence gateway)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (statutory tolling does not excuse late state filings that occur after AEDPA expiration)
- Helton v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 259 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and due diligence)