No. 99-30056
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30056
Summary Calendar
RANDY TUCKER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana
State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-360-LLM
- - - - - - - - - -
January 21, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Randy Tucker, a Louisiana prisoner (# 94614), appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court granted
Tucker a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the issue
whether his petition was barred by the one-year limitations
period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), among other issues.
Tucker argues that he was entitled to the application of
§ 2244(d)(1)(B), which extends the limitation period as long as a
state-created, unconstitutional “impediment” prevents the filing
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-30056
-2-
of a petition. Tucker asserts that prison officials confiscated
all of his legal materials, including his already-prepared § 2254
petition, on April 9, 1997, approximately two weeks before the
judicially-created one-year grace period expired, see Flanagan v.
Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1998), and did not return
them to him until January 1998. He maintains that this violated
his constitutional right of access to the courts. See Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Tucker has not shown, however,
that the confiscation of these materials was not “‘reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests,’” see Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 361 (1996) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89 (1987)), in that the evidence reflects that Tucker at
the time had reasonably been suspected of forging court orders in
an effort to gain the release of himself and other inmates.
Similarly, Tucker has not shown that he was entitled to
equitable tolling of the limitations period, see Davis v.
Johnson, 158 F.3d 806, 810-11 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119
S. Ct. 1474 (1999) (§ 2244(d) period may be equitably tolled in
“exceptional circumstances”), as Tucker did not “come into court
with clean hands.” See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.
Automotive Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.