United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
THOMAS G. STEWART (TDCJ No. 571499), Petitioner,
LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Thomas Stewart, a Texas inmate, has filed a pro se
application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. This resulting action has been referred to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order
of reference from Senior U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings.
Lorie Davis moves to dismiss the application as barred by the
statute of limitations. See Dkt. Nos. 17 & 18.
And Stewart has filed a court-ordered response to the motion.
See Dkt. No. 22.
undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation that, for the reasons explained
below, the Court should grant the motion to dismiss and
dismiss Stewart's habeas petition as time-barred.
habeas petition collaterally attacks his July 10, 2014
conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which
resulted in a sentence of three years of imprisonment.
See State v. Stewart, No. 39171CR (40th Jud. Dist.
Ct., Ellis Cty., Tex.) [Dkt. No. 18-3]. Stewart's direct
appeal was dismissed based on his waiver of his right to
appeal. See Stewart v. State, No. 10-14-00214-CR,
2014 WL 3800374 (Tex. App. - Waco July 31, 2014). And the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) refused
his petition for discretionary review (“PDR”).
See Stewart v. State, PD-1288-14 (Tex. Crim. App.
Nov. 19, 2014) [Dkt. Nos. 18-7 & 18-8].
also denied his state habeas application without written
order on findings of the trial court without hearing. See
Ex parte Stewart, WR-26, 727-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov.
18, 2015) [Dkt. No. 18-9]. That application [Dkt. No. 18-11
at 61-78] was filed no sooner than June 24, 2015, the date on
which Stewart signed it, see Id. at 77, 78.
Stewart filed his federal habeas action in this Court no
sooner than November 10, 2016, the date on which he signed
the Section 2254 petition. See Dkt. No. 2 at 22.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) establishes a one-year statute of
limitations for federal habeas proceedings brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. See Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214
(1996). The limitations period runs from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the