Case 6:12-cv-02090-AKK-TMP Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2
2013 Jul-30 PM 01:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAVID MARTIN CAMPBELL,
LOUIS BOYD, Warden, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
) Case No. 6-12-cv-02090-AKK-TMP
The magistrate judge filed a report on April 26, 2013, recommending that
the court dismiss David Martin Campbell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Doc. 21. Campbell does not refute
that he filed this petition more than a year after his underlying conviction became
final, but objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation based on his conten-
tion that claims of actual innocence and an illegal sentence are not subject to the
limitations period set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See doc. 22. Although the limitations
period does apply to Campbell’s “illegal sentence” claim, “the Eleventh Circuit
has not yet decided ‘whether a showing of actual innocence is an exception to the
Case 6:12-cv-02090-AKK-TMP Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2
one-year statute of limitations in AEDPA[.]’” Charest v. Mitchem, No. CA 10-
0067-CG-C, 2013 WL 1499535, at *28 (S.D. Ala. March 8, 2013) (quoting Ray v.
Mitchem, 272 F. App’x 807, 810 n.2 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 898 (2008).
Instead, “it has guided courts to make the actual innocence inquiry as opposed to
‘addressing the difficult constitutional question of whether the limitations period
constitutes a violation of the Suspension Clause if the petitioner can show actual
innocence[.]’” Id.(quoting Ray, 272 F. App’x at 810 n.2).
In this instance, however, the record fails to support the petitioner’s claim of
actual innocence. Accordingly, after carefully reviewing and considering de novo
all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the
Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and hereby is
ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. It is therefore ORDERED
that petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED
and DISMISSED with prejudice.
DONE the 30th day of July, 2013.
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE