OWENS
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (POLK COUNTY)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the applicant's habeas corpus petition was untimely and dismissed it as time-barred, denying a certificate of appealability.
The applicant sought federal habeas corpus relief challenging state convictions. A prior order found the application untimely, directing the applicant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
Owens applies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) and challenges the validity of his state convictions for armed robbery, carrying a concealed firearm, and possessing a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he is imprisoned for life. An earlier order (Doc. 3) determines that Owens's application is untimely to challenge his 2005 state court convictions, specifically, that his “one-year limitation expired in December 2020 even without accounting for un-tolled time that passed during the preceding nearly fifteen years[, and c]onsequently, the pending application is at least four years late.” (Doc. 3 at 2–3) The order directs Owens to show cause why federal review is not barred.
Instead of addressing the untimeliness of the application, in response (Doc. 8) Owens argues the merits of his underlying grounds and asserts entitlement to review under the manifest injustice exception to the limitation. The earlier order explains
(Doc. 3 at 4) that the manifest injustice exception requires (1) evidence proving that Owens is "actually innocent" of the criminal offense, that is, that he is factually innocent of the offense, and (2) evidence that is new and so convincing of innocence that "no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 538 (2006). Owens's arguments meets neither requirement, and he must meet both requirements to qualify for the manifest injustice exception.
The application for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED. The clerk must close this case.
DENIAL OF BOTH
A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Owens is not entitled to a certificate of appealability (“COA"). A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his application. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a COA. Section 2253(c)(2) permits issuing a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” To merit a COA, Owens must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both the merits of the underlying claims and the procedural issues he seeks to raise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F. 3d 926, 935 (11th Cir. 2001). Because he fails to show that reasonable jurists would
"find debatable” either the merits of the grounds or the procedural issues, Owens is entitled to neither a COA nor leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Owens must obtain permission from the circuit court to appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 30, 2024.
Кийиниши
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slack v. McDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006)