United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jedidiah D. Troxel, pro se petitioner.
Matthew Frank, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
October 27, 2016, Petitioner Jedidiah Dean Troxel filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. (Pet., Oct. 27, 2016, Docket No. 1.) Troxel is
serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole
after a Minnesota jury convicted him of first-degree murder
while committing criminal sexual conduct. (Id. at
1.) He was sentenced on November 5, 2013, and never filed a
direct appeal. (Id. at 1, 7.) He filed a petition
for postconviction relief on December 22, 2014, which the
state district court denied. (R&R at 1, Oct. 18, 2017,
Docket No. 17.); Troxel v. State, 875 N.W.2d 302,
305-06 (Minn. 2016). Troxel appealed to the Minnesota Supreme
Court, which affirmed the district court's decision on
February 17, 2016. Id. at 316.
§ 2254 petition seeks relief on three grounds: (1) the
trial judge should have been disqualified from presiding over
his trial based on an appearance of partiality; (2) the trial
court erred in denying his request for a
lesser-included-offense jury instruction on second-degree
intentional murder; and (3) the trial court erred in denying
his request to introduce evidence of an alternative
perpetrator. (Pet. at 3.)
States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the
Court deny Troxel's habeas petition as untimely and
dismiss the action with prejudice. (R&R at 4.) Troxel
filed Objections on January 31, 2018. (Objs., Jan. 31, 2018,
Docket No. 28.) Because Troxel's § 2254 petition is
time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), the Court will
overrule his objection, adopt the R&R, and deny his
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Because Troxel's objections were
proper, the Court will review the R&R de novo.
THE AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year statute of
limitations on habeas petitions filed by state prisoners. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year period begins on the
date that the petitioner's “judgment became final
by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the
time for seeking such review.” Id. §
2244(d)(1)(A). AEDPA tolls the one-year period while a
petition for postconviction relief is pending. 28 U.S.C.
case, Troxel filed his habeas petition 208 days late. He was
sentenced on November 5, 2013, and his 90-day deadline for
filing for direct review was February 3, 2014. See
Minn. R. Crim. P. 29.03, subd. 3. As such, the one-year
period for filing a habeas petition began on February 4,
2014. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The clock
ran for 321 days before being tolled when Troxel filed his
petition for postconviction relief on December 22, 2014.
See Id. § 2244(d)(2). The clock began to run
again on February 18, 2016, the day after the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Troxel's state
petition for postconviction relief. Id. The one-year
limitation period expired 45 days later, on April 2,
2016. Troxel's federal habeas petition was
filed on October 27, 2016, which was 208 days after the
expiration of AEDPA's limitation period.
mistakenly argues that Section 2244(d)(2) of AEDPA resets the
limitations period, rather than merely tolling it. Under this
assumption, he would have had one year from the denial of his
petition for postconviction relief to file a habeas petition,
making his filing timely. “Section 2244(d)(2) only
stops, but does not reset, the [statute of limitations] clock
from ticking and cannot revive a time period that has already
expired.” Cordle v. Guarino, 428 F.3d 46, 48
n.4 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Dunker v.
Bissonnette, 154 F.Supp.2d 95, 103 (D. Mass. 2001)).
Nothing in AEDPA suggests that the one-year limitations
period is reset at the conclusion of a state postconviction