Filed: Apr. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-2970 _ Stacy S. Abram, IV lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mike Allen, Sheriff, Crittenden County Arkansas; State of Arkansas; Wendy Kelley,1 Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro _ Submitted: April 1, 2015 Filed: April 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDE
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-2970 _ Stacy S. Abram, IV lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mike Allen, Sheriff, Crittenden County Arkansas; State of Arkansas; Wendy Kelley,1 Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro _ Submitted: April 1, 2015 Filed: April 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2970
___________________________
Stacy S. Abram, IV
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Mike Allen, Sheriff, Crittenden County Arkansas; State of Arkansas; Wendy
Kelley,1 Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
____________
Submitted: April 1, 2015
Filed: April 14, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
1
Wendy Kelley has been appointed to serve as Director of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 43(c).
Stacy Abram appeals after the district court2 denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as untimely. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA)
as to whether a possible jurisdictional problem with the judgment of conviction in the
state trial court affected the timeliness analysis. After careful de novo review, we
conclude that the district court’s dismissal was proper. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A) (habeas application challenging state court judgment must be filed
within 1 year of the date on which conviction became final); Holland v. Florida,
560
U.S. 631, 649-52 (2010) (§ 2254 petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling when he
establishes he diligently pursued his rights and some extraordinary circumstance
stood in his way of filing a timely petition); Camacho v. Hobbs,
774 F.3d 931, 932
(8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); Johnson v. Hobbs,
678 F.3d 607, 610-11 (8th
Cir. 2012) (extraordinary circumstance must be external and not attributable to
petitioner); cf. Barreto-Barreto v. United States,
551 F.3d 95, 100 (1st Cir. 2008)
(§ 2255 motion claiming trial court lacked jurisdiction must be filed within limitation
period).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
2
The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-