Merrick v. Larkins , 56 F. App'x 554 ( 2002 )

Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-25-2002
Merrick v. Larkins
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-1595
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"Merrick v. Larkins" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 771.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/771
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No: 01-1595
____________
JOHN J. MERRICK,
Appellant
v.
DAVID LARKINS, Warden, State Correctional Institute, Dallas;
MICHAEL FISHER, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
PA
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 98-cv-01090)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
____________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on September 10, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, ROTH
and WEIS Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 25, 2002)
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner John J. Merrick appeals the denial of a habeas corpus motion brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9. Merrick is incarcerated in a state
correctional facility on a life sentence.1 He filed a habeas corpus petition with the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in July 1998, well past the
one-year statute of limitations. The District Court dismissed the petition as untimely.
Merrick appealed and we directed counsel to brief the issue of equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We then remanded the matter to
the District Court. Following a hearing, the District Court denied the request to toll the
statute of limitations. On appeal, Merrick contends that the statutory time period should be
equitably tolled because he is mentally disabled and as a result he was not aware that his
attorney had failed to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
We have appellate jurisdiction over a final order of the District Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We also have jurisdiction over these habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In reviewing a federal habeas judgment, we
exercise plenary review over the district court's legal conclusions and apply a clearly
1
Only the relevant history of Merrick’s habeas corpus petition is detailed herein. He
was convicted in 1982 in a jury trial and sentenced in 1983. Following a dismissal of his
petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing/Relief Act in 1991, there was no habeas corpus
petition filed until July 1998.
2
erroneous standard to its findings of fact. See, e.g., Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 262 (3d
Cir. 2000). We will affirm the findings of the District Court.
The facts of this case are familiar to the parties and will not be recited herein.
Merrick claims that the District Court erred in denying his request to toll the statute
of limitations. The crux of the Merrick’s argument is that his former counsel took
advantage of his mental disability in failing to file a timely petition and that Merrick was
excusably ignorant of the time limitations due to his severe mental impairments in the form
of chronic schizophrenia. The District Court found that the state’s expert witness, Dr.
Timothy J. Michals, was more credible than Merrick’s witness. Dr. Michals testified that
upon his review of Merrick’s treatment history and his personal interview with Merrick, he
determined that Merrick was capable of filing a habeas corpus petition because his
schizophrenic symptoms were not active during the relevant time periods. Moreover, the
District Court also noted that in 1996 Merrick had been able to file a complaint with the
disciplinary board that his lawyer had absconded with his funds.
The District Court’s findings are evidenced in the record and we decline to find that
the Court committed clear error in its decision. We will affirm.
3
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge
4