Raymond Johnson v. William “Chris” Rankins, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissed Raymond Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely under AEDPA’s statute of limitations. The court rejected statutory and equitable tolling arguments and held that Johnson failed to satisfy the actual-innocence gateway because he presented no new reliable evidence and did not rebut the state court’s factual findings. The court granted the motion to dismiss, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied appointment of counsel.

Holdings

1. Johnson's federal habeas petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). His state judgment became final on December 13, 2021, and the one-year limitations period expired, absent tolling, on December 14, 2022.
2. Johnson was not entitled to sufficient statutory tolling to make his petition timely. His motion for suspended sentence afforded, at most, fifteen days of tolling, and his application for post-conviction relief was filed after the limitations period had expired and therefore did not toll or restart the limitations period.
3. Johnson was not entitled to equitable tolling because he expressly stated that he did not seek equitable tolling and did not establish the required diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
4. Johnson failed to pass through the actual-innocence gateway and therefore could not overcome the statute-of-limitations bar.
5. A certificate of appealability was denied because no reasonable jurist would debate the dismissal of the petition on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson's January 6, 2025 federal habeas petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
2. Whether Johnson was entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) based on his state motions and post-conviction application.
3. Whether Johnson was entitled to equitable tolling.
4. Whether Johnson could use the actual-innocence gateway to overcome the untimely filing of his habeas petition.
5. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue and whether counsel should be appointed.

Disposition

dismissed