Marshall v. Dixon

Summary

A United States magistrate judge recommends granting the Secretary’s motion to dismiss Anthony C. Marshall’s amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under AEDPA. The recommendation rejects statutory and equitable tolling arguments, concludes that no evidentiary hearing is warranted, and recommends denying a certificate of appealability and closing the case.

Holdings

1. The amended § 2254 petition was untimely because Marshall filed it after the expiration of the one-year limitations period, which expired on November 4, 2024.
2. Marshall's motions seeking records, transcripts, discovery, or similar materials did not toll the AEDPA limitations period because they did not request review of the judgment or authorize the state court to grant relief from the conviction or sentence.
3. Marshall's June 5, 2024 state petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not toll the AEDPA limitations period because the state court dismissed it as untimely.
4. Marshall was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not establish both diligent pursuit of his rights and an extraordinary circumstance that caused his untimely filing.
5. An evidentiary hearing was not warranted because timeliness did not depend on any contested factual issue.
6. The report recommends denying a certificate of appealability because Marshall made no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Marshall's § 2254 petition was untimely under the one-year AEDPA limitations period.
2. Whether Marshall's state motions for records, transcripts, discovery, or DNA-related relief statutorily tolled the AEDPA limitations period.
3. Whether Marshall's untimely state petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was properly filed and therefore tolled the AEDPA limitations period.
4. Whether Marshall established diligence and extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.
5. Whether an evidentiary hearing or certificate of appealability was warranted.

Disposition

other