Smith v. Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 3:2011cv00070 - Document 10 (E.D. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/26/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF
IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF COURT VIRGINIA Richmond Division MURRAY LEON SMITH, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et 3:11CV7O al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Murray brings Order Leon this Smith, petition entered on Virginia a writ for June 21, of 2011, the 2006 Smith contended that he was not proceeding pro se, corpus. By Memorandum informed Court appeal.1 Smith conviction which he required to that did it not satisfy the limitations because: This instant concerning petition procedure is exclusive April administrative 17 of post via conviction ones private From the initial administrative 2009. procedure. According to Smith, one remedy administrative process. 1 a habeas he of challenging prisoner appeared statute was a To This the is December all for 1 8 2010 cause. Smith is challenging his conviction in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court for "indecent liberties" in which Smith was sentenced on September 25, 2006. (§ 2254 Pet. (Docket No. 5), at 2.) Because Smith did not appeal, Smith's conviction became final for purposes of determining the statute of limitations on the day on which Smith's time for seeking direct review expired. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (1) (A) . Smith's time for seeking direct review expired on Wednesday, October 25, thirty days after his conviction was entered. O'Donnell v. Virginia. No. 3:08-CV-18, 2008 WL 3166515, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2008) . Smith had one year from that date to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) (1) (A) . Smith, however, filed his petition in January 2011. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, private administrative processes are not time bared [sic]. (§ 2254 Pet. (Docket No. Court ordered Smith to 5) H 18 show cause, date of entry of the June 21, not should be (capitalization corrected).) dismissed within eleven (11) 2011 Memorandum Order, for violation of days The of the why the action the statute of limitations.2 Smith filed a document purporting to show cause for violating the statute of limitations. His response is an incoherent list of case-law quotations and nonsense. For example, government agency for x Murray-Leon-Smith7 (Show Cause (Docket No. 9), at 2.) United States Government's use of is: Smith italics Smith asserts, "The ^MURRAY LEON SMITH. '" also insists refers to that the the name of a vessel. Smith action has for not shown violating adequate the one-year actions arising under 28 U.S.C. Accordingly, DENIED as The An appeal may not ("COA") . a unless 28 prisoner 2 Hill v. § for statute 2254. See Smith's petition for a writ of untimely. proceeding cause a U.S.C. makes action will be judge § "a taken substantial the Braxton, 701, F.3d limitations 28 U.S.C. habeas § this for 2244(d). corpus will be final order of A COA will not showing statute of 707 of certificate 2253 (c) (1) (A) . A Court may raise 277 a dismissing be DISMISSED. from the issues not of the limitations (4th Cir. 2002). in a § 2254 appealability issue unless denial of sua sponte. a constitutional is satisfied (or, for resolved right." only 28 when § 2253 (c) (2) . "reasonable that matter, in different a U.S.C. agree that) manner jurists the or that could petition the This requirement debate should issues have been presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" McDaniel. 463 U.S. Smith is 529 880, U.S. 473, 893 n.4 entitled certificate of to 484 (2000) (1983)). further (quoting No law or Barefoot evidence consideration appealability will in whether v. Slack v. Estelle, suggests this matter. that A therefore be DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Smith. And it is so ORDERED. Robert Date: (J/gZ» 1>i.~ Richmonc E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.