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.

Green v. Holloway

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville

January 31, 2018

MARVIN GREEN, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES HOLLOWAY, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred [Doc. 13]. Petitioner has not filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, but rather has filed a motion for leave to add additional claims [Doc. 16]. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss [Doc. 8] will be GRANTED, Petitioner's motion to add additional claims [Doc. 16] will be DENIED, and this action will be DISMISSED.

         The Court previously summarized the procedural history as to Petitioner's relevant convictions as follows:

On January 8, 2008, petitioner pleaded guilty to the following charges:
possessing marijuana, possessing .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school, one count of maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances were kept or sold, and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia.

State v. Green, No. E2013-02425-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2957716, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 30, 2014). Petitioner filed an appeal of his convictions to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals which was dismissed on August 29, 2008, due to plaintiff's failure to file a brief [Doc. 37-1]. It does not appear that petitioner sought permission to appeal this dismissal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In 2011, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief which was dismissed, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld that dismissal [Doc. 37-4 and Doc. 37-3 p. 1]. In 2013, petitioner filed his first motion seeking post-conviction relief which was dismissed as time-barred, as well as on the merits [Doc. 37-2 p. 4]. Plaintiff also filed various other motions attacking his conviction and/or sentence in 2013, all of which were denied, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed these denials [Docs. 37-2 and 37-3].

Green v. Schofield, Civil No. 2:15-CV-064 [Doc. 50 p. 1-2] (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2015).

         Petitioner filed the instant §2254 petition on or about January 20, 2015 [Doc. 1-6].[1]

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2241, et seq., provides a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of an application for a federal writ of habeas corpus. The statute provides, in relevant part:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review . . . . [or]
* * *
C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

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.