The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONNIE WAYNE BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:25-cv-222-ACA-SGC
)
WARDEN SMITH, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Donnie Wayne Brown filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered a report
recommending the court dismiss the petition as untimely. (Doc. 11). Mr. Brown filed
an objection. (Doc. 12).
Mr. Brown devotes the majority of his two-page filing alleging that the state
judicial system is “corrupt,” and he did not have a fair trial. (Doc. 12 at 1, 2). For his
objection, Mr. Brown reiterates that he “has still to this day of 3-5-26 not been
contacted by the Alabama Supreme Court or Attorney Katherine Patillo” to notify
him that a judgment denying his Rule 32 petition has been certified as denied. (Doc.
12 at 1–2; see doc. 1-2 at 71; doc. 6 at 1–2; doc. 9 at 1; doc. 10; doc. 11 at 5–11).
But Mr. Brown does not address the magistrate judge’s finding that he failed to meet
the standard for invoking equitable tolling because he did not establish either that he
pursued his rights diligently or his appellate attorney’s inaction qualified as an
extraordinary circumstance and prevented timely filing. See Holland v. Florida, 560
U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Mr. Brown’s
objections. (Doc. 12).
After careful consideration of the entire record, the magistrate judge’s report,
and Mr. Brown’s objections, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the
recommendation. Consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court
WILL DISMISS Mr. Brown’s petition as untimely.
This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, the petition must demonstrate “jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000).
Here, Mr. Brown asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 1-
2 at 22–66). Jurists of reason could find it debatable whether Mr. Brown stated valid
claims for the denial of his constitutional rights on these grounds. Additionally,
jurists of reason could find it debatable whether Mr. Brown has shown entitlement
to equitable tolling based on his attorney’s abandonment.
2
Accordingly, the court WILL GRANT a certificate of appealability on the
following question: whether Mr. Brown has shown that his attorney’s abandonment
is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from filing a timely petition for
purposes of equitable tolling.
The court will enter a final order consistent with this memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this March 31, 2026.
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE