Matthew A. Tobin v. Ricky D. Dixon

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Florida
DecidedMay 20, 2026
Docket3:26-cv-03646
StatusUnknown

This text of Matthew A. Tobin v. Ricky D. Dixon (Matthew A. Tobin v. Ricky D. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthew A. Tobin v. Ricky D. Dixon, (N.D. Fla. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATTHEW A. TOBIN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26cv3646-AW-HTC

RICKY D. DIXON,

Respondent.

___________________________/

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Matthew A. Tobin, proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in the First Judicial Circuit for Okaloosa County Case Number 2015 CF 2644. Doc. 1 at 1. Upon review of the petition and after taking judicial notice of the relevant state court documents, the undersigned sua sponte recommends the petition be DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing as UNTIMELY. It was filed almost six (6) years after the statute of limitations expired. I. STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 4 Under Habeas Rule 4, “[t]he clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4 requires district courts to dismiss § 2254 petitions without ordering a response “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, 141 S. Ct. 309 (2020). This preliminary review calls on a district court to screen the petition prior to

service and dismiss the petition, sua sponte, upon a determination that it contains no meritorious claim for relief. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 4 advisory committee notes (“it is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications”). The procedure serves to “eliminate the burden that would be placed on the

respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer.” Id. A dismissal under Rule 4 may be appropriate both on the merits and upon a finding that the petition is procedurally barred. Paez, 947 F.3d at 649. Specifically,

a district court may sua sponte dismiss a § 2254 petition if it is clear the petition is untimely. Kilgore v. Att’y Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084, 1089 (10th Cir. 2008); Jackson v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 292 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“even though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the district

court may review sua sponte the timeliness of the section 2254 petition”). II. THE PETITION IS UNTIMELY

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a § 2254 petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1 However, the one-year period is tolled for “[t]he time

during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). As discussed below, Tobin’s federal petition is untimely because the

one-year statute of limitations period began to run in 2016 and, even with tolling, expired in January 2018. In 2015, Tobin was charged with violating a domestic violence injunction and armed trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. See State of Florida

v. Tobin, 2015 CF 002644.2 In 2016, while on probation in the 2015 case, Tobin was charged with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and criminal mischief. See State of Florida v. Tobin, 2016 CF 000355. Tobin pled no contest to all the charges.

On May 23, 2016,3 the Court entered an Amended Judgment and Sentence in both cases, sentencing Tobin to 5 years on the armed trespass charge, time served

1 Although there are other “trigger” dates under the AEDPA, none of those apply here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). 2 The dockets for the criminal cases referenced herein are available online and are also attached hereto as Exhibit A. However, because the filed documents are available only to registered users, the Court has also attached those filings referenced herein as exhibits to this report. See Paez, 947 F.3d at 652 (finding “the District Court acted properly when it took notice of the state court dockets as well as when it sua sponte dismissed the petition without ordering a response from the Secretary”). 3 Although the Court signed the Amended Judgment on April 14, 2016, and it was “done in open court” on March 31, 2016, it was not filed until May 23, 2016. Thus, for purposes of the timeliness analysis, the Court will use the more favorable-to-Petitioner May 23, 2016 date. for the violation of domestic violence injunction charge, 10 years on the burglary charge, and time served for the criminal mischief charge.4 The sentences for the armed trespass and burglary charges were to run consecutive for a total sentence of

15 years, concurrent with the other sentences. See Amended Judgment, Exhibit B. Tobin did not file a direct appeal. Thus, Tobin’s conviction became final thirty (30) days later or on June 22, 2016, when the time for Tobin to file a direct

appeal expired. See Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (if a defendant does not appeal the conviction or sentence, judgment becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a direct appeal expires). In July 2016, Tobin filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea; the motion

was dismissed on August 25, 2016. Tobin did not appeal the circuit court’s decision. In September 2016, Tobin filed a pro se 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. On November 11, 2016, the circuit court dismissed the motion, with

leave for Tobin to file an amended motion within 60 days. See Order, Exhibit C. Tobin did not file an amended 3.850 motion by the due date. Instead, in October 2017, Tobin filed a motion for resentencing, which the circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on October 12, 2017.5 Tobin did not appeal the court’s dismissal.

4 Tobin filed a federal habeas case challenging 2016 CF 000355. This Court denied the petition as untimely. See Tobin v. Dixon, 3:24-cv-00467-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2025). 5 See Exhibit D attached hereto. Because the court entered one judgment in both cases, the motion for re-sentencing was docketed by the clerk in both cases, as was true with Tobin’s other post- conviction motions. See Exhibit E, attached hereto, noting the motion for re-sentencing was Tobin did not file another postconviction motion until July 2019, more than a year after the circuit court dismissed his motion for resentencing. Thus, Tobin had no application for postconviction relief pending from October 12, 2017, which

would have tolled the AEDPA 1-year statute of limitations before it expired. In the petition, Tobin does not dispute that the petition is untimely.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sandvik v. United States
177 F.3d 1269 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Jackson v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
292 F.3d 1347 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Johnson v. United States
544 U.S. 295 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo
544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Schriro v. Landrigan
550 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Kilgore v. Attorney General of Colorado
519 F.3d 1084 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
San Martin v. McNeil
633 F.3d 1257 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
Hutchinson v. Florida
677 F.3d 1097 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Gust v. State
535 So. 2d 642 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Martin Valdez, Jr. v. W. Montgomery
918 F.3d 687 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Iglesias v. State
76 So. 3d 370 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Simmons v. State
779 So. 2d 298 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Johnson v. United States
340 F.3d 1219 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matthew A. Tobin v. Ricky D. Dixon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-a-tobin-v-ricky-d-dixon-flnd-2026.