United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
TIMOTHY P. O'LAUGHLIN, Petitioner,
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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. He brings this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a state court conviction.
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). He pled guilty on
November 27, 2006, and was sentenced that same day to one
year of incarceration. Petitioner did not file a direct
filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 23,
2019, by placing it in his institution's mailing
system. (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).
April 22, 2019, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause
why his case should not be dismissed as time-barred and
moot. (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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
second page of petitioner's response consists entirely of
case numbers and ...