The appellate court’s ruling came in the appeal of a federal district court’s dismissal of a habeas corpus petition filed by Georgia state prisoner Thurston Brown, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Brown was denied parole on October 15, 1997, by the Georgia Department of Pardons and Parole (Board). He wrote several letters to the Board seeking reconsideration. On January 7, 1999, Brown filed a federal habeas which was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Brown filed a state court writ of mandamus on August 4, 2000, challenging the Board’s denial of parole. Five years later, summary judgment was granted to the Board.
Brown then filed a new federal habeas petition. The Eleventh Circuit held his petition was untimely because the limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D) began to run on “the date on which the federal predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
The Court of Appeals found it was well established under Georgia law that “a prisoner serving a life sentence can administratively appeal the Board’s decision denying parole.” Since Brown failed to avail himself of that remedy, or failed to otherwise toll the limitation period prior to one year elapsing before he filed any administrative or judicial remedy, the petition was properly dismissed as untimely. The district court’s order was affirmed. See: Brown v. Barrow, 512 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login