Munoz Rueda v. Clarke, No. 1:2014cv00699 - Document 26 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 8 MOTION to Dismiss habeas petition by Harold W. Clarke. (See Memorandum Opinion For Details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/17/15. (nhall)

Download PDF

Munoz Rueda v. Clarke Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Trudy Eiiana Munoz Rueda, Petitioner, ) ) V. ) ) Harold Clarke, Respondent. ) ) l:14cv699(LMB/IDD) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Trudy Eiiana Munoz Rueda, a Virginia inmate proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpuspursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of her conviction by a jury in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County of felony child neglect and willful or negligent cruelty to a child. On August 18, 2014, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and Rule 5 Answer, along with a supporting brief Petitioner has filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss, to which respondent has replied. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition.' For the reasons that follow, respondent's Motion to Dismisswill be granted, and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice. I. Background On July 20, 2009, petitioner was indicted in Fairfax County for child abuse or neglect, in 'Petitioner's argumentthat she is entitledto an evidentiary hearingin this matter,^ Pet. at 20 24, is not well taken. In Cullen v. Pinholster. U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 1388,1400 (April 4,2011), which superceded thelawupon which petitioner relies, theSupreme Court held that"[i]fa claim has been adjudicated on the merits in a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court." Thus, "[i]n such a circumstance, any evidentiary hearing in federal court is unwarranted, as new evidence adduced during such a hearing could not be considered in making the determination under § 2254(d)(1)." Williams v. Stanlev. 581 F. App'x 295,296 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014). Dockets.Justia.com that argument, as follows: ... Munoz-Rueda argues that her counsel failed to review the medical records which would have revealed,one, that [N.W.] had an infection; two, [N.W.] was likely dehydrated and had pre-existing head trauma; three, that [N.W.] had a family history that was unexplored; four, that Inova Fairfax Hospital arrived at a diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome almost instantaneously; and five, that Inova medical professionals conducted no reasonable diagnosis of possible alternative causes for his symptoms. There was no evidence presented that counsel did not review the medical records. In fact it's clear to the Court on the direct and crossexamination of the witnesses that counsel had reviewed the records and were familiar with them. Although one of the attorneys may be more experienced in dealing with the medical records and was given the responsibility of developing medical issues at trial it does not amoimt to ineffective assistance of counsel. As anticipated and appropriate they also relied on the expertise of their expert who testified that they had reviewed medical records. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that [N.W.] suffered from any infection prior to this accident. The fact that [the] child was fussy does not in and of itself indicate there was a pre-existing infection. There was no reference to any fever or cough or admission in the records and there was testimony that the fever that occurred later was most likely the result of the intubation and ventilation. None ofMunoz-Rueda's experts even noted fever for being a factor in their opinions. Moreover, although it may have been Dr. Barnes' explanation for the venous cortical thrombosis there is no evidence that would have accounted for the other findings related to the injuries - the left paracortical contusion and injury to the corpus callosum. In fact Munoz-Rueda[] has presented conflicting testimony through her experts as to the significance of the thrombosis cortical vein. There was also no evidence that cross examination on the referenced family history would have made a difference in the diagnosisand thejury has been given the opinion that some of the bleeding could be associated and related to the trauma of childbirth. The medical records and the attached affidavit from counsel also do not support Munoz-Rueda's conclusion that there was a rush to judgment thatthe injuries were Shaken Baby Syndrome, or thatthere was no reasonabledifferentialdiagnosisofpossiblealternative causes 18

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.