Kasper v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 1:19-cv-173-AW-GRJ. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20200320763
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2020
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL ALLEN WINSOR , District Judge . I have reviewed the magistrate judge's February 5, 2020 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. I have also considered de novo Kasper's objections. ECF No. 12. I have now determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Kasper does not dispute the fact that his petition was filed beyond the statutory deadline. His argument is for equitable tolling. As the magistrate judge concluded, Kasper has not shown extraordinary circumstan
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL ALLEN WINSOR , District Judge . I have reviewed the magistrate judge's February 5, 2020 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. I have also considered de novo Kasper's objections. ECF No. 12. I have now determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Kasper does not dispute the fact that his petition was filed beyond the statutory deadline. His argument is for equitable tolling. As the magistrate judge concluded, Kasper has not shown extraordinary circumstanc..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ALLEN WINSOR, District Judge.
I have reviewed the magistrate judge's February 5, 2020 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. I have also considered de novo Kasper's objections. ECF No. 12. I have now determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Kasper does not dispute the fact that his petition was filed beyond the statutory deadline. His argument is for equitable tolling. As the magistrate judge concluded, Kasper has not shown extraordinary circumstances that would warrant tolling. In his objection, Kasper argues that he misunderstood the law and believed his petition for belated appeal would toll his deadline. But a misunderstanding of law as it relates to tolling is not an extraordinary circumstance. See Perez v. Florida, 519 Fed. App'x 995, 997 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[W]e have not accepted a lack of a legal education and related confusion or ignorance about the law as excuses for a failure to file in a timely fashion. As with any litigant, pro se litigants are deemed to know of the one-year statute of limitations.") (marks and citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. The motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
3. The Clerk will close the file.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
