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
Case 3:25-cv-00276-MW-MAF Document 27 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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
Case 3:25-cv-00276-MW-MAF Document 27 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Case 3:25-cv-00276-MW-MAF Document 27 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3