A state prisoner's federal appeal was rejected for missing the filing deadline.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Larry A. White, ) Case No. 9:25-cv-08297-JDA ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Curtis Earley, Warden of Perry ) Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. 1.] This matter is before the Court on Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and Petitioner’s motions for discovery, for sanctions, and to take notice. [Docs. 18; 24; 27; 29.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, denies Petitioner’s motions for discovery and for sanctions, finds as moot Petitioner’s motion to take notice, and dismisses this action with prejudice. BACKGROUND1 On July 30, 2018, Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted murder and first-degree burglary and received a 15-year sentence. [See App. at 1–12.2] 1 The Magistrate Judge accurately summarized the procedural posture and facts of this case. [See Doc. 32 at 2–9, 16–18.] Accordingly, the Court includes only the information necessary to address Petitioner’s objections. 2 The Appendix can be found at Docket Entry Number 23-1. On April 22, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). [Id. at 13–18.] On December 16, 2019, Petitioner’s appointed PCR counsel filed an amended PCR application. [Id. at 28–29, 67–68.] Among other allegations, Petitioner claimed that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly file a notice of appeal. [Id.] On October 14, 2020, the PCR court issued an order denying PCR but granting a belated direct appeal. [Id. at 66–81.] On December 10, 2020, Petitioner’s PCR counsel filed a notice of appeal of the PCR court’s order. [Doc. 23-2 at 1.] PCR counsel filed a petition for writ of certiorari presenting two questions: (1) whether the PCR court ruled properly in granting Petitioner’s request for a belated direct appeal and (2) whether the PCR court erred in denying Petitioner’s allegation that trial counsel coerced him to plead guilty. [Doc. 23-3.] In addition, PCR counsel filed a direct appeal. [Doc. 23-4.] Pursuant to the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, the Supreme Court of South Carolina transferred the case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. [Doc. 23-5; S.C. App. Ct. R. 243(l).] On September 27, 2023, the South Carolina Court of Appeals granted certiorari as to question one and denied certiorari as to question two. [Doc. 23-6.] As to the issues raised on direct appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the plea court. [Id.] The remittitur was sent to the Clerk of Court of Marion County on October 17, 2023, and filed on October 25, 2023. [Doc. 23-7.] Petitioner filed an additional PCR application on January 16, 2024. [Doc. 1 ¶ 6.] According to Petitioner, the second PCR court dismissed the application on August 12, 2024, “on the grounds of being procedurally barred as untimely, barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and based off failing to make a prima facie showing of newly discovered evidence . . . .” [Id.] Further, on May 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a state habeas corpus petition. [Id. ¶ 7.] According to Petitioner, the court dismissed the petition, “stating that all of Petitioner’s claims have been or should have been addressed in the Application for Post Conviction Relief or the Appeal[.]” [Id.] On July 18, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3 [Doc. 1.] Petitioner alleges the following grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary plea agreement, tainted indictment, prosecutorial misconduct, newly discovered evidence/equal protection violation, and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. [Id. at 2–6; see also Doc. 32 at 16–18.] Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2026. [Doc. 24.] Respondent argues that summary judgment is appropriate because Petitioner failed to file his Petition within the time allotted under federal law; Petitioner failed to raise any of his issues at the proper time before the state courts such that Petitioner procedurally defaulted on these issues; and Petitioner has not otherwise shown a basis for federal habeas relief. [Doc. 23 at 7, 13–26; see also Doc. 32 at 18.] The Clerk docked a response from Petitioner on February 17, 2026. [Doc. 28; see also Doc. 34.] Petitioner also filed motions for discovery, for sanctions, and to take notice. [Docs. 18; 27; 29; see also Docs. 30; 31.] 3 A prisoner’s pleading is considered filed at the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Accordingly, this Petition was filed on July 18, 2025. [Doc. 1-2 at 1 (envelope marked as received by the prison mail room on July 18, 2025).] On June 18, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted because Petitioner did not timely file his Petition or demonstrate a basis for equitable tolling. [Doc. 32 at 18–28.] In addition, the Report recommends denying Petitioner’s motions for discovery and for sanctions and finding as moot Petitioner’s motion to take notice. [Id. at 28–31.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 33.] The Clerk docketed Petitioner’s objections to the Report on July 14, 2026. [Doc. 35.] Principally, Petitioner contends that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because “Petitioner’s [PCR] counsel incorrectly advised” him that he could file an additional PCR action in state court “if his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.” [Id. at 1.] Petitioner claims that he would have filed his federal Petition within the statute of limitations but for counsel’s incorrect advice. [Id. at 2.] Further, Petitioner appears to argue that this Court may review any procedurally defaulted claims because “[t]he government prevented him from following the procedural rule of exhaustion.” [Id. at 1.] STANDARD OF REVIEW The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Web

Official opinion source