Austin Cooper v. Larry Norris , 365 F. App'x 740 ( 2010 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3372
___________
Austin Cooper, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *
Department of Corrections, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: February 16, 2010
Filed: February 23, 2010
___________
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Austin Cooper--who is serving a life sentence on a 1993 rape conviction, see
Cooper v. Arkansas, 879 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Ark. 1994)--appeals the district court’s1
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. Following careful
de novo review, see Painter v. Iowa, 247 F.3d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 2001), we find no
1
The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas.
basis for reversal, see id. (time between completion of direct review of conviction and
filing of application for state post-conviction relief counts against one-year period;
when petitioner filed his state-court application for post-conviction relief, there was
no federal limitations period remaining to toll, and thus federal petition was properly
dismissed as time-barred); see also Baker v. Norris, 321 F.3d 769, 771-72 (8th Cir.
2003) (rejecting claim of equitable tolling supported in part by allegation that
inadequate access to prison law library made it impossible to file petition on time);
Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 976-78 (8th Cir. 2002) (to make viable claim that
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) should be equitably tolled based on actual innocence,
petitioner would have to show some action or inaction on part of State that prevented
him from discovering relevant facts in timely fashion, or that reasonably diligent
petitioner could not have discovered facts in time to file petition within limitation
period).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-