United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
LARRY T. HOWARD, Petitioner,
TERI LAWSON, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. KOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon review of petitioner's
response to the order to show cause. Having carefully reviewed
petitioner's response, the Court concludes that his
arguments are without merit and that the instant action is
time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
2, 2014, petitioner was sentenced to eight counts each of
burglary in the second degree, property damage in the second
degree and misdemeanor theft/stealing. See State v.
Howard, No. 1222-CR06857-01 (22nd Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis City Court). Petitioner received a total
of five (5) years' imprisonment.
did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence,
nor did he file any post-conviction appeals. Petitioner filed
the instant application for habeas corpus relief by placing
his petition in the prison mailing system at Farmington
Correctional Center on November 17, 2017.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a one- year period of limitation
applies to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.
In petitioner's case, the limitations period runs from
the date on which his judgment became final upon the
expiration of the time for seeking direct review. As
petitioner was sentenced in June 2014, and he did not file in
this Court until November 17, 2017, he was more than two
years late in filing his action pursuant to § 2254.
Thus, on December 1, 2017, the Court ordered petitioner to
show cause why his petition for writ of habeas corpus should
not be dismissed as time-barred.
responded to the Order to Show Cause on December 20, 2017,
asserting that he should be excused from the one-year statute
of limitations because he "was not aware of certain laws
or rights due to lack of comprehension, ineffective
assistance of counsel, and rules of policies and
procedures." Petitioner also asserts that he is innocent
of the crime of which he has been accused, and he seeks
counsel in order to assist him in his habeas
the doctrine of equitable tolling, the AEDPA's statutory
limitations period may be tolled if a petitioner can show
that (1) he has been diligently pursuing his rights and (2)
an extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Holland
v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Equitable tolling
is a flexible procedure that involves both recognition of the
role of precedent and an "awareness of the fact that
specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance,
could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case."
Id. at 649-50.
tolling is "an exceedingly narrow window of relief.
"Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 805 (8th Cir.
2001). "Pro se status, lack of legal knowledge or legal
resources, confusion about or miscalculations of the
limitations period, or the failure to recognize the legal
ramifications of actions taken in prior post-conviction
proceedings are inadequate to warrant equitable
tolling." Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598
(8th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); Kreutzer v.
Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding
that "even in the case of an unrepresented prisoner
alleging a lack of legal knowledge or legal resources,
equitable tolling has not been warranted").
the aforementioned case law, none of the assertions proffered
by petitioner warrant equitable tolling in these
circumstances. As petitioner has failed to give an equitable
reason why his untimeliness should be excused, the Court must
dismiss the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED AND DISMISSED
as time-barred. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a
Certificate of ...