Willis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 3:2008cv00455 - Document 7 (W.D. Ky. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/22/09; for the reasons set forth the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this petition.cc:Petitioner, pro se, Respondent, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky (SC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-P455-S ARTHUR WILLIS PETITIONER v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court after preliminary review of Arthur Willis s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as time-barred under the doctrine of equitable tolling and, in his response, Petitioner avers generally that he is ignorant of the law, lacks adequate resources and is generally disadvantaged by circumstances in prison. None of these circumstances supports equitably tolling § 2244's limitation period under Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1008 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court will therefore enter a separate order dismissing this petition. Certificate of Appealability Before seeking an appeal, § 2253 requires a petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. This does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Rather, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could find debatable whether the petition should be resolved in a different manner or that the matter deserves further review. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). This Court concludes no reasonable jurist would find debatable the conclusion that the petition is time- barred and that the doctrine of equitable tolling is not applicable. DATED: cc: 4411.007 July 22, 2009 Petitioner, pro se Respondent Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.