Taylor v. Myers et al, No. 1:2018cv00653 - Document 26 (N.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/13/2022. (KAM)

Download PDF
Taylor v. Myers et al Doc. 26 FILED 2022 Jun-13 PM 02:22 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION FARRON ALEXANDER TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MYERS, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:18-cv-00653-LSC-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 11, 2021, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Final Judgment denying Petitioner Farron Alexander Taylor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as time-barred and denying a certificate of appealability. (Docs. 18, 19). On August 25, 2021, Taylor filed a post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 20). Taylor declared that unforeseen events prevented him from filing timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 20 at 2-3). Although Taylor was granted until October 14, 2021, to file objections, none were received by the court and on October 27, 2021, the court denied Taylor’s Rule 59(e) motion. (Doc. 24). Dockets.Justia.com On October 29, 2021, the court received Taylor’s objections. (Doc. 25). Because Taylor certified that he gave the objections to prison officials on October 14, 2021, for delivery to the court, the objections are timely filed. 1 To effectuate consideration of Taylor’s objections, the court WITHDRAWS the October 27, 2021, order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. (Doc. 24). Taylor requests the court reject the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he cannot demonstrate that equitable tolling based on a mental impairment excuses his untimely petition. (Doc. 25). Taylor argues he presented “sufficient evidence to create a factual issue as to a causal connection between his mental capacity and his ability to file a timely § 2254 petition,” and requests an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 25 at 1-2). Taylor’s objections are OVERRULED. The one-year federal statute of limitations began to run on December 16, 2010, and it expired on December 16, 2011. (Doc. 17 at 5-6). Taylor has never disavowed the validity of an April 12, 2010, forensic evaluation report addressing his competence to stand trial and waive his Miranda rights, and does not challenge the accuracy of the magistrate judge’s summary of the report. (Doc. 17 at 9-10 n.7) (citing Doc. 1 at 53-56). That report demonstrates that Taylor did not have a mental impairment that prevented him from 1 Prisoners proceeding pro se have virtually no control over the mailing of their pleadings, so their pleadings are deemed to be filed at the time the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison or jail officials to be mailed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988). raising parole questions with prison officials before the time for filing his habeas petition expired had he exercised due diligence. After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s report, and the objections thereto, the court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED and this action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is due to be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED on June 13, 2022. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.