[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 18-12891 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-00648-MSS-JSS

TRAVIS D. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________

(March 25, 2021) Before WILSON, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. GRANT, Circuit Judge: While serving a life sentence in Florida, Travis Turner filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his filing, he conceded that the petition was untimely—and provided the dates to prove it. The district court confirmed that the USCA11 Case: 18-12891 Date Filed: 03/25/2021 Page: 2 of 8

petition was late by checking Turner’s online state court dockets, and then sua sponte dismissed the petition as untimely.

Turner now argues that the district court erred by taking judicial notice of the online state court dockets without providing him an opportunity to be heard. But Turner himself provided all the information needed to show that his filing was late, and he was given a chance to argue that the district court erred. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of his petition. I.

In 2002, Turner was convicted of numerous offenses—including robbery, armed robbery, aggravated battery of a person 65 years or older, and possession of controlled substances. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480, 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). After that unfavorable conclusion, Turner gave up on direct appeals. Rather than seeking review of his case at the Florida Supreme Court, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in December 2005. Turner’s motion was denied in August 2006. Six years later, he tried again for post-conviction relief, this time through a state habeas petition. The same result followed; in March 2015, his petition was summarily denied. At that point, it was on to federal court. Turner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2017, challenging both his convictions and his sentence. Turner’s initial petition failed to use the district court’s standard

2 USCA11 Case: 18-12891 Date Filed: 03/25/2021 Page: 3 of 8

form, so the court required an amendment using the proper paperwork. But it first observed that Turner’s petition failed “to disclose relevant dates showing when his direct appeal concluded, when he commenced a state post-conviction proceeding, and when that proceeding concluded.” Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner must file a § 2254 petition within a one-year period of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The clock for Turner’s petition began to run when “the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because Turner did not provide those dates, the court said the petition’s timeliness was “not ascertainable.” Turner filed his amended petition using the standard form the next month. This time, he provi