IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 17, 2011
JAMES A. GRAY
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Savage, J.
More than two years after his federal habeas petition was denied, James Gray filed this pro se motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). He argues that the dismissal of his habeas petition as time-barred was based on an erroneous application of Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 412-13 (2005), and that the limitations period for filing his habeas claim should have been tolleduntil he received actual notice that his Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act petition had been denied. According to Gray, by commencing the limitations period on May 12, 2005, his habeas petition, filed on May 20, 2005, would have been considered timely.
Gray was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of crime on July 14, 1988. His conviction was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on May 11, 1992. In his petition under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")filed nearlyeight years later on March 2, 2000, Gray made
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.