Christopher Carroll Lively v. Chadwick Crabtree, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Christopher Carroll Lively’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court held that the petition was untimely under the AEDPA statute of limitations and that Lively was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling based on alleged misinformation, missing habeas materials, or limited law-library access.

Holdings

1. The petition was untimely because the AEDPA one-year limitations period expired on August 12, 2019, and Lively did not file his federal petition until January 8, 2023.
2. Lively was not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(1)(B) because he did not establish unlawful state action that actually prevented him from filing a timely federal petition.
3. Lively was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to show both extraordinary circumstances beyond his control and diligent pursuit of his rights.
4. No certificate of appealability should issue because reasonable jurists would not debate that the petition was time-barred or that statutory or equitable tolling was unavailable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lively's § 2254 petition was filed within the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations.
2. Whether Lively was entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) based on alleged misinformation from a fellow inmate, missing habeas materials, and law-library restrictions.
3. Whether Lively was entitled to equitable tolling based on alleged extraordinary circumstances and lack of access to legal materials.
4. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

dismissed