KELLY
v.
DIXON
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 petitioner's claims for equitable tolling based on lack of education, inmate law clerk failures, and separation from legal papers were insufficient to overcome the untimeliness of his habeas petition.
Petitioner Benjamin Kelly sought to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, arguing it should not be dismissed as untimely due to equitable tolling. He cite…
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 19. Petitioner raises one argument, but it does not help his claim. Petitioner argues that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition should not be dismissed as untimely because he is entitled to equitable tolling. ECF No. 19. Specifically, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because of his lack of education, the failures of inmate law clerks assisting him, and the inmate law clerk depriving him of his legal papers. Id. at 1–2. This argument fails. “Equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy which is typically applied sparingly.” Steed v. Head, 219 F. 3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000). As the Magistrate Judge aptly noted, lack of education does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling. See Perez v. Fla., 519 F. App’x 995, 997 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that “a lack of a legal education and related confusion or ignorance about the law” is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling). Nor does an inmate’s reliance on the erroneous advice of an inmate clerk. See Whiddon v. Dugger, 894 F. 2d 1266, 1267 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that poor advice from inmate law clerks during collateral proceedings will not establish petitioner’s claim of cause for a procedural default as there is no right to legal counsel in such proceedings). Nor does an inmate’s separation from his legal papers. Dodd v. United States, 365 F. 3d 1273, 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting “that lockdowns and periods in which a prisoner is separated from his legal papers are not
‘extraordinary circumstances’ in which equitable tolling is appropriate”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 18, is accepted and adopted, over Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. 3. Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.” 5. This Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
6. The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on October 27, 2023.
s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Dodd v. United States, 365 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Whiddon v. Dugger, 894 F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1990)