Philip Jude Moran v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION PHILIP JUDE MORAN, Petitioner, v. Case No.: 3:25cv276-MW/MAF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 26. As noted in the report and recommendation, it is undisputed that Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is untimely. But Petitioner asserts the deadline should be equitably tolled based on his counsel’s serious medical condition and points to an uncontested affidavit in support thereof. The Magistrate Judge credited the facts presented in the affidavit but otherwise found that those undisputed facts did not give rise to equitable tolling based on Petitioner’s counsel’s otherwise diligent performance of her duties on Petitioner’s behalf throughout her medical treatment. Despite the physiological side effects of her medical condition and treatment, Petitioner’s counsel did not miss any other deadlines in pursuing Petitioner’s case in state court. Indeed, the filing deadline for the § 2254 petition is the only missed deadline, attributed to a miscalculation on Petitioner’s counsel’s behalf.

Now, Petitioner objects to resolving this matter without an evidentiary hearing. “In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Chavez v. Sec’y of Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Schiro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007)). Petitioner has not demonstrated that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether he is entitled to equitable tolling based on the undisputed facts before this Court— including the affidavit from Petitioner’s counsel, which is undisputed and which the Magistrate Judge credited. Taken as true, Petitioner’s allegations, while tragic, do not give rise to equitable tolling in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is accepted and adopted, over the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED as untimely.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 3, 2026.

s/Mark E. Walker United States District Judge