Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O'Laughlin v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

May 9, 2019

TIMOTHY P. O'LAUGHLIN, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Timothy P. O'Laughlin's response to the Court's April 22, 2019 order to show cause. (Docket No. 8). The Court had ordered petitioner to show cause why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed as time-barred and moot. Having carefully reviewed petitioner's response, as well as his supplemental response, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court must dismiss this action.

         Background

          Petitioner is presently being held at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, pursuant to a commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.[1] He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a state court conviction.

         On December 30, 2004, petitioner was charged in Missouri state court with one count of third-degree assault. State of Missouri v. O'Laughlin, No. 2104R-05539 (21st Cir., St. Louis County).[2] He pled guilty on November 27, 2006, and was sentenced that same day to one year of incarceration. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

         Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 23, 2019, by placing it in his institution's mailing system.[3] (Docket No. 1 at 13). He states three grounds for relief. First, he alleges that St. Louis County never had legitimate charges against him. (Docket No. 1 at 5). Next, he states that his alleged crimes could not be proven. (Docket No. 1 at 6). Finally, he claims that he was unaware that he could have reversed his November 27, 2006 guilty plea within thirty days. (Docket No. 1 at 8).

         On April 22, 2019, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why his case should not be dismissed as time-barred and moot.[4] (Docket No. 7). The Court noted that petitioner was sentenced on November 27, 2006, and did not file a direct appeal. He did not file the instant petition until January 23, 2019, well beyond the one-year limitations period. The Court further noted that at the time petitioner filed the instant action, he was not in custody under the conviction he was attacking, making his petition moot. Petitioner was given thirty days in which to respond.

         On April 29, 2019, petitioner complied with the Court's order by filing a response to the order to show cause. (Docket No. 8). He has also filed a supplemental response, which the Court has reviewed. (Docket No. 9).

         Petitioner's Response to Show Cause Order

          Petitioner's responses to the Court are disjointed and difficult to understand. More pertinently, they do not address the issues presented in the Court's order of April 22, 2019.

         Petitioner begins by stating that “these filings/petitions were generated from dissecting” his federal criminal case. (Docket No. 8 at 1). In that case, he asserts that Judge Perry clearly indicates that his state conviction was invalid and that he has “ongoing ineffective legal misrepresentation by” his assistant federal public defender, Nanci McCarthy. He further claims that his assistant federal public defender was the “supervisor” for the state cases that are the subject of his § 2254 petition.

         In his state case, petitioner claims that all persons pertaining to the case were deposed, and that he was cleared. Nevertheless, he states that a plea was conducted “in a hallway” rather than in open court, with no court reporter present. He states that the judge did not use a checklist to verify that he understood his rights. Furthermore, he claims he was not afforded legal research material, despite multiple requests to Ms. McCarthy.

         Petitioner mentions the phrase “equitable tolling” but does not use it in the context of explaining why it took him so long to file the instant § 2254 petition. He also alleges that his rights are being continuously violated by selective prosecution, and that these wrongs are still occurring.

         The second page of petitioner's response consists entirely of case numbers and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.