Campbell v. Boyd et al, No. 6:2012cv02090 - Document 23 (N.D. Ala. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 07/30/2013. (PSM)
Download PDF
Campbell v. Boyd et al Doc. 23 FILED 2013 Jul-30 PM 01:35 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID MARTIN CAMPBELL, Petitioner , v. LOUIS BOYD, Warden, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 6-12-cv-02090-AKK-TMP ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report on April 26, 2013, recommending that the court dismiss David Martin Campbell s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Doc. 21. Campbell does not refute that he filed this petition more than a year after his underlying conviction became final, but objects to the magistrate judge s recommendation based on his contention that claims of actual innocence and an illegal sentence are not subject to the limitations period set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( AEDPA ), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See doc. 22. Although the limitations period does apply to Campbell s illegal sentence claim, the Eleventh Circuit has not yet decided whether a showing of actual innocence is an exception to the Dockets.Justia.com one-year statute of limitations in AEDPA[.] Charest v. Mitchem, No. CA 100067-CG-C, 2013 WL 1499535, at *28 (S.D. Ala. March 8, 2013) (quoting Ray v. Mitchem, 272 F. App x 807, 810 n.2 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 898 (2008). Instead, it has guided courts to make the actual innocence inquiry as opposed to addressing the difficult constitutional question of whether the limitations period constitutes a violation of the Suspension Clause if the petitioner can show actual innocence[.] Id.(quoting Ray, 272 F. App x at 810 n.2). In this instance, however, the record fails to support the petitioner s claim of actual innocence. Accordingly, after carefully reviewing and considering de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge s report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that petitioner s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE the 30th day of July, 2013. ________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2