The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBois, J.
Petitioner, James Mario Pridgen, is currently serving a life sentence in Pennsylvania for his state conviction on a first-degree murder charge. Presently before the Court is Petitioner's 60(b) Motion Alleging that the Federal Courts Misapplied the Federal Statute of Limitations Set Out in § 2244(d). Petitioner argues that his original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2254 was entitled to equitable tolling and that it was therefore properly filed within the applicable statute of limitations. The Court denies the Motion for the reasons set forth below.
The facts of this case have been previously set forth in the opinions of this Court. See e.g., Pridgen v. Shannon, 2002 WL 31122131 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2002). Accordingly, the Court recounts only those facts necessary to resolve the issues presently before the Court.
Following his conviction and sentencing for first-degree murder, petitioner filed his first application for post-conviction relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9541, et seq. on May 23, 1996. That PCRA petition was denied by the Court of Common Pleas, the denial was affirmed by the Superior Court, and on January 12, 1999 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition for allowance of appeal.
While the PCRA appeal was pending in state court, on September 12, 1997, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By Order dated December 10, 1997, this Court approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles Smith and dismissed the Petition without prejudice, on the ground that petitioner had failed to exhaust his state court remedies.
Petitioner then filed a second PCRA petition on February 22, 1999, which was dismissed by the state trial court as being barred by the applicable one-year state statute of limitations. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Superior Court, which affirmed the dismissal of the petition as untimely, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on June 20, 2000.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court on July 24, 2000. That Petition was later withdrawn at petitioner's request. He filed a new Petition on September 8, 2000, which was considered by the Court. By Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Charles Smith recommended that the § 2254 Petition be dismissed as untimely. That recommendation was based on section § 2244(d) of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") of 1996 which provides a one-year statute of limitations period following direct review in the state courts within which a state prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. § 2244(d)(2) provides that "the time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (emphasis added).
Magistrate Judge Smith concluded that because the second PCRA petition was dismissed as untimely by the state courts, it was not "properly filed," and thus could not act to toll the one-year time limit applicable under AEDPA. Petitioner thus had approximately eleven months from the final disposition of his first and only properly filed PCRA petition to file a petition for federal habeas relief, that is until December 13, 1999. Petitioner failed to do so; he did not file a petition for habeas relief until July 24, 2000, over seven months after the deadline passed, rendering the habeas Petition untimely. See Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721 (3d Cir. 2004) (finding the July 24, 2000 submission date as untimely). By Order dated December 13, 2000, this Court approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Smith, and denied and dismissed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time-barred under AEDPA.
In the instant 60(b) motion, petitioner seeks relief from that twelve-year old order of the Court. Petitioner alleges that the statute of limitations under AEDPA should have been equitably tolled during the pendency of his second PCRA petition. He states that Third Circuit precedent led him to believe that he was required to exhaust state remedies, and that as a consequence, the statute of limitations would be tolled during his proceedings in state court. Petitioner thus claims that the one (1) year limitations period should have been equitably tolled and that his habeas Petition was timely filed.
The Court rejects petitioner's arguments on two grounds: (1) the instant motion was not filed within a "reasonable time" as required under Rule 60(b), and (2) petitioner has not shown extraordinary circumstances ...