No. 19-8018

Timothy Humphrey v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 28-usc-2244 aedpa-limitations aedpa-limitations-period antiterrorism-and-effective-death-penalty-act federal-habeas federal-habeas-corpus postconviction-relief properly-filed state-court state-court-procedure time-barred
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-05-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an application for state postconviction relief is 'properly filed' within the meaning of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provision (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2))

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED SYNOPSIS On February 27, 2006, Humphrey was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison on March 3, 2006. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on February 22, 2008. See Humphrey v. State, 979 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 294 DCA 2008). He sought certiorari review to the United States Supreme Court and was denied on October 5, 2009. See Humphrey v. Florida, 558 US 838, 130 S Ct 87 (2009). The trial court later issued a new judgment awarding jail credit on March 16, 2010, and Humphrey’s one-year AEDPA time limitations period began . once the trial court issued this new judgment. Eventually, Humphrey filed a collateral postconviction motion that was 185 pages in length. The Court granted him leave to file an amended motion that did not exceed fifty pages. He was able to reduce the motion to fifty-five pages in length. At issue in this case, the federal district court determined that Humphrey’s 55-page postconviction motion was not properly filed in the state court. The federal court concluded that this motion did not toll his federal clock. Thus, his § 2254 petition was time-barred. This leads to a compelling question. QUESTION ONE Whether an application for state postconviction relief is “properly filed” within the meaning of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act i provision (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)) where, through no fault of his own, the | motion remained “pending” for longer than the AEDPA limitations period, during which time the state court searched for a reason to render the motion improperly filed, ultimately impeded the claims from being heard?! ' This Court answered a similar question in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S. Ct. 361, 148 L. Ed. 2d 213 (2000), but the instant certiorari petition will allow this Court to expound upon the definition of “properly filed.” ii INTERESTED PARTIES , There are no interested

Docket Entries

2020-05-18
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2018-09-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 17, 2020)

Attorneys

Timothy Humphrey
Timothy Humphrey — Petitioner
Timothy Humphrey — Petitioner