United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
DENISE L. HOLMAN, Petitioner,
FELIX VINCENZ, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on petitioner Denise L.
Holman's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 9). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court will direct petitioner to
show cause why her petition should not be dismissed as
untimely or for failure to exhaust state remedies.
March 9, 2010, the State of Missouri filed an information
charging petitioner with the Class C felony of assault in the
second degree. State of Missouri v. Holman, No.
10MR-CR00099-01 (10th Cir., Marion County). On August 2,
2010, petitioner withdrew her plea of not guilty and entered
a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect
excluding responsibility. As such, the circuit court
acquitted her of the charge of assault in the second degree.
The circuit court also committed petitioner indefinitely to
the Department of Mental Health. Petitioner did not file a
filed a notice of intent to petition for release on November
20, 2015. On December 15, 2015, an attorney for the
Department of Mental Health filed a motion to dismiss and an
objection to petitioner's application for unconditional
release. There is no indication that the circuit court ruled
upon the petition for release or the subsequent motion, as
the next docket entries are for correspondence filed in
January and February 2018. The Court has also been unable to
find any indication that petitioner filed an appeal with the
Missouri Court of Appeals.
filed the instant action on June 19, 2019, by placing it in
her institution's mailing system. The petition contains four
grounds for relief. First, petitioner alleges that documents
were omitted from State of Missouri v. Holman, No.
10MR-CR00099-01 (10th Cir., Marion County), and thus, her not
guilty by reason of mental defect plea was invalid. (Docket
No. 9 at 3). Second, petitioner asserts that due process was
not upheld because when she requested her case file from the
circuit clerk's office, she was told that there were no
transcripts. (Docket No. 9 at 8). Third, petitioner claims
that a 2017 elopement charge from Audrain County was invalid
because she was unlawfully imprisoned. (Docket No. 9 at 5).
Finally, petitioner alleges that her psychiatric condition
was not assessed at the time of her not guilty by reason of
mental defect plea. (Docket No. 9 at 9).
is currently confined at the St. Louis Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Center in St. Louis, Missouri. She brings this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons
discussed below, petitioner will be directed to show cause
why her petition should not be dismissed as untimely or for
failure to exhaust her state remedies.
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), Congress established a one-year statute of
limitations period for petitioners seeking federal habeas
relief from state court judgments. Finch v. Miller,
491 F.3d 424, 426 (8th Cir. 2007). This one-year statute of
limitations begins to run on the latest of four alternative
dates. Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 804 (8th Cir.
2001). Relevant here is the provision stating that a habeas
petitioner has one year from the date her judgment becomes
final to file her federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
extent that petitioner is challenging the original August 2,
2010 order committing her to the custody of the Department of
Mental Health, her petition appears time-barred. There is no
notice of appeal on the docket sheet of petitioner's
criminal case, nor has the Court been able to find any record
of a direct appeal. Because no appeal was filed, the
commitment order became final ten days after it was issued.
See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.
2015) (stating that when a petitioner foregoes state appeals,
the court must look to state-court filing deadlines to
determine the expiration of the time for seeking direct
review); and Mo. S.Ct. R. 81.04(a) (“No such appeal
shall be effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed
not later than ten days after the judgment, decree, or order
appealed from becomes final”). Thus, the order was
final as of August 12, 2010, giving petitioner until August
12, 2011 in which to timely file a petition under §
2254. However, petitioner did not file the instant action
until June 19, 2019, long after the statute of limitations
period expired. Petitioner will therefore be ordered to show
cause why any challenge to her original commitment should not
allows civilly-committed persons to apply for conditional or
unconditional release on a yearly basis. See Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 552.040.5; Mo. Rev. Stat. §
552.040.13. Thus, to the extent that petitioner is
challenging a conditional or unconditional release hearing,
the action may be timely. Nevertheless, petitioner must still
demonstrate that she has exhausted her state remedies.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
is elementary that a § 2254 petitioner must exhaust
available state remedies before he is entitled to relief in
federal court.” White v. Wyrick, 651 F.2d ...