MARY ROBINSON, District Judge
Came this day for consideration the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner ROBERT JOSEPH FIERRO. On November 21, 2001, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this cause, recommending therein that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied as time barred. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on December 10, 2001.
Petitioner was charged by indictment with aggravated kidnaping, sexual assault of an adult, and indecency/sexual assault of a child in Cause Nos. 37,285, 37,286 and 37,287, respectively. On September 23, 1997, after petitioner entered a guilty plea to the charge of indecency/sexual assault of a child in Cause No. 37,287 and was sentenced to 16 years as part of a plea agreement, the remaining two charges were dismissed as unadjudicated.
In his habeas application, petitioner contends:
1. that after his arrest, he was denied counsel after invoking his right to have counsel present;
2. his guilty plea in Cause No. 37,287 was involuntary because the trial court "never told him he was actually pleading guilty to all three charges,"
i.e., that he would also have "final convictions" in Cause Nos. 37,285 and 37,286;
3. he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel:
a. failed to file a motion to quash the indictment;
b. misrepresented the terms of the plea bargain by stating Cause Nos. 37,285 and 37,286 would be dismissed when, in fact they were not; and
c. coerced petitioner into entering a guilty plea when petitioner wanted, instead, to go to trial.
4. trial court erred in adjudicating Cause No. 37,287 upon petitioner's guilty plea because the indictment was untimely.
By his objections, petitioner appears to argue the 1-year period for filing his federal habeas corpus application shouldnot have started on October 8, 1997, the date his judgment became final, but instead, should have begun on the date on which the impediment to filing his application, created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, was removed. Specifically, petitioner argues that he, as well as his uncle and a family friend, diligently attempted to obtain a copy of the "trial record," the "Court Reporter's notes," "statements given to police, all police reports, all medical reports, presentence report, disclosure of all plea negotiations, all victim and witness statements . . . and letters that petitioner sent to District Attorney Rebecca King requesting indictment," as well as mail logs from the Potter County Sheriff s Department and the Potter County Correctional Center, but that State officials "kept giving him the runaround." Petitioner argues that, "at the earliest, the one-year limitation should begin to run is August 19, 2000, the day he received the Court Reporter notes."
The undersigned finds that the grounds petitioner raises in this proceeding did not require review of the "Court Reporter notes" or other documents petitioner indicates he so diligently sought. The grounds petitioner raises were apparent at the time they occurred or no later than the date the judgment was entered. Consequently, the State did not impede petitioner's filing of his application, nor does the undersigned find the State actions were in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Petitioner's 1-year limitation period began on October 8, 1997, the date his judgment became final.
Even if it is petitioner's argument that the 1-year period began on October 8, 1997 but that the time from that date should be equitably tolled until August 19, 2000, the date he received the "Court Reporter notes," said argument is without merit. Equitable tolling of the limitation period is allowed only in "rare and exceptional circumstances." Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260 59 Cir. 2000 (quoting Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 712 (5th Cir. 1999)). Petitioner's attempts to obtain documents which were not necessary for him to plead his grievances do not justify equitable tolling of the limitation period.
The undersigned United States District Judge has made an independent examination of the record in this case and has examined the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as well as the objections filed by petitioner. The District Judge is of the opinion petitioner's objections should be, and hereby are, OVERRULED. The District Judge is of the further opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be, and hereby is, ADOPTED. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
IT IS SO ORDERED.