Scotty D. Brown v. Karen Arnold - Habeas Corpus Dismissal
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington filed an order dismissing the habeas corpus petition of Scotty D. Brown. The court found that the petitioner failed to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
What changed
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in the case of Scotty D. Brown v. Karen Arnold (Docket No. 2:25-cv-00444-MKD), issued an order on February 13, 2026, dismissing the petitioner's action. The court had previously ordered the petitioner to show cause why his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Despite extensions, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds to overcome the statute of limitations.
This ruling means the petitioner's habeas corpus challenge to his 2011 conviction is dismissed. For legal professionals and criminal defendants involved in habeas corpus petitions, this case underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and providing clear justification for any delays. Failure to do so, as demonstrated here, will result in dismissal of the petition.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Feb. 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Scotty D. Brown v. Karen Arnold
District Court, E.D. Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00444
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
1
2
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3
Feb 13, 2026
4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7
8
SCOTTY D. BROWN, No. 2:25-cv-00444-MKD
9
Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
10
vs.
11
KAREN ARNOLD,
12
Respondent.
13
14
15 By Order filed December 9, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner, an individual
16 incarcerated at the Stafford Creek Correction Center in Aberdeen, Washington, to
17 show cause why his petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed as
18 time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). ECF No. 4. Petitioner has paid the $5 filing
19 fee. Respondent has not been served.
20
1 On January 12, 2026, the Court extended the deadline to show cause until
2 February 11, 2026. ECF No. 6. On February 12, 2026, the Court received
3 Petitioner’s “Motion to Show Cause,” which is construed as Petitioner’s Response to
4 the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 7. After careful review of his submissions, the
5 Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his federal habeas corpus
6 petition challenging his 2011 conviction was timely filed.
7 Petitioner argues that he was “effectively denied his right to direct review[.]”
8 ECF No. 7 at 1. He asserts that his attorney failed to inform him of the time to file a
9 Notice of Appeal. Id. at 1-2. Although Petitioner contends that he “exercised due
10 diligence within his scope of knowledge and ability[,]” he has provided no facts
11 from which the Court could infer the exercise of due diligence since his conviction
12 and sentence in 2011. He asks the Court for “the opportunity to file a direct appeal
13 in State Court, before proceeding further, this [sic] allowing legitimate exhaustion of
14 state remedies as required.” Id. at 2-3.
15 As attachments, Petitioner includes a letter written while he was incarcerated
16 in Texas on January 13, 2012, addressed to an Okanogan County Superior Court
17 judge, and filed on January 23, 2012, asserting his desire to appeal. Id. at 5. On
18 May 17, 2012, the Bailiff of that Court directed the Deputy Prosecutor and an
19 attorney to reply to the letter. Id. at 6. Petitioner presents no facts indicating he
20 pursued the matter further in 2012.
1 Petitioner includes a declaration of his attorney dated June 14, 2011,
2 indicating Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in April 2011, based on inaccurate
3 assurances from counsel that his sentence would run concurrently with a federal
4 sentence. Id. at 8. Petitioner does not state what additional steps he took to perfect a
5 direct appeal or to obtain timely state collateral review. Petitioner was clearly aware
6 of the consecutive nature of his sentence when it was imposed in 2011.
7 A lack of legal sophistication, a lack of legal training, a lack of legal
8 assistance, and ignore of the law do not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance”
9 entitling Petitioner to any equitable tolling of the limitation period. Rasberry v.
10 Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “a pro se petitioner's lack
11 of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting
12 equitable tolling” of the AEDPA limitations period).
13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
14 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED
15 with prejudice as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d).
16 2. The Court certifies that any appeal from this decision could not be
17 taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of
18 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
19 appealability is therefore DENIED.
20
1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office shall file this Order, enter
2 judgment, provide a copy to Petitioner, and CLOSE THE FILE.
3 DATED February 13, 2026.
4
s/Mary K. Dimke
5 MARY K. DIMKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Federal Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when EDWA Opinions publishes new changes.