Martin v. Clarke, No. 2:2011cv00518 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations and that the 1 Petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the report. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the res pondent; noting appeal procedures and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 5/8/2012. copy mailed to Petitioner on 5/9/2012.(rsim) Modified on 5/9/2012 to note mailing instructions (rsim).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin v. Clarke Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR"T r JLl!.Lr.r-I'-;-' FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division ANTONIO D. /AY 8 2012 ! MARTIN, Petitioner, ' v. Case No.: HAROLD CLARKE, Virginia 1 Director of "~' 2:llcv518 the Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL This corpus of matter under federal the of Court which initiated U.S.C. rights Circuit result 28 was § he Henry was by 2254. pertaining of ORDER petition The to petition the County, sentenced for writ alleges petitioner's Virginia, to a serve a for term of habeas violations conviction robbery, of ten in as years a in prison. The pursuant Rule of to 72 (b) the the of Rules District of matter of the provisions the of referred Federal the for magistrate prejudice. of that ECF his No. right 19. to a 28 Rules report of was file copy States § Procedure, District of written Court for on denied the report, objections and (C), Rule the Eastern The March and Judge and recommendation. filed be Magistrate 636(b)(l)(B) Civil and petition By United U.S.C. States judge the to of United Virginia recommending advised was report 21, 2012, dismissed each to the 72 party with was findings Dockets.Justia.com and recommendations 2012, the Court objections. of the filed The respondent 20. finding, the began to magistrate claims magistrate run on judge conviction ran days 242 petition on October limitations habeas petition March for period 30, an 2011. Because that 11, date 2011, to 1, writ habeas corpus. The entitled 1 7, to to which the be no April 5, written response 123 a a to judge equitable magistrate judge noncognizable petitioner has on not of the objected. - of federal was period habeas the state Virginia to run again 31, 2011. until petition not on had July petitioner whether the found 2 on the 2244(d)(2), began ending period when state so for a filed until later. federal - § Court then the In petitioner's petition considered tolling the his one one-year limitations to timely instant date filed period Sunday, file The the Supreme days, AEDPA's but limitations The until all § 2244(d). the Pursuant the that the 2010, thirty-seven days magistrate The claim 2011, by on by petitioner of fell found final. tolled period August September filed that 11, limitations Monday, of On petitioner's U.S.C. noted 2010. denied The additional the was was 28 became until judge barred See February petitioner's for are limitations.1 the the judge. objections. report, of magistrate and petitioner's statute the No. ECF his by received the petitioner's In made the statute petitioner of limitations, petitioner's habeas review, was a remaining finding to finding that addresses In to at this his of tolling equitable (5th a 2000); 1372764, at law constitute *5 the been 130 S. objection also Johnson, Murray 11, v. 2010) have the is he alleges version library circumstance 227 F.3d Johnson, No. been circumstances' does 260, of not warranting 263 2:09cv476, (" [A]negations consistently library outdated an law entitled prison Specifically, inadequate v. of he n.3 2010 inadequate held not to necessary to tolling."). the 2549, written that contained ^extraordinary petitioner has his pursuing Ct. Center. exceptional' Scott (Mar. argues inadequacy computer and see justify equitable has the "an libraries Moreover, petitioner to But tolling." Cir. prison the due *rare petitioner's alone. library AEDPA.2 constitute The Correctional prison the not. finding Baskerville the was objection, equitable that WL he diligently." 2562 rights (2010). failed To make to the demonstrate Holland requisite v. "that he Florida, showing of 2 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 extensively amended certain of the statutes governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. The last substantive amendment to any of these statutes, however, was by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, enacted years before the petitioner's underlying conviction. The petitioner's objection does not state how outdated the prison library resources were, nor does it explain how this constituted an timely filing of his federal habeas petition. The Act of actions petitioner 1995, but involving also references the Prison the PLRA largely pertains prisoners. The PLRA does proceedings. - 3 - obstacle Litigation to the Reform to ordinary civil not govern habeas diligence, steps he the took Archuleta, petitioner to F.3d To show provide he 925, 930 diligence, in specificity federal (10th filing the claims." Cir. the Yang 1998) to limitations v. (internal He the "state must to and must "thwarted his the untimely in efforts relevant run," evidence, petitioner's "when alleged the prison inadequacies must taken show independent when began such actions library's any the claiming library specific determine Absent the law petition. how efforts." alleged the period demonstrate petitioner prison about must made between of out deficiency," a the details found he his with omitted). deficiencies toward allege pursue diligently 525 quotation marks "must connection filing the and any library is insufficient. Arthur v. Allen, Helton v. Sec'y Cir. 452 F.3d for 2001). Dep't Here, 1234, of the 1253 Corrs., (11th 259 petitioner Cir. F.3d 2006) 1310, provides (quoting 1314 (11th of this none information whatsoever.3 3 Indeed, the only information provided in support are three exhibits submitted objection: to the (1) a Attorney asserting version that of updated; (2) a letter and the yet another computer prison most be that member on a prison the U.S. Matthew and a February communications that staff Code Kirby, 8, 20, 2012. that - Notably, occurred 4 - Talbert, and been these months on (3) an request by library response had 3 Statutes prison 2012, be October 2012, the outdated to Mr. updated; computer 14, computer Virginia February 2011, an and that the 3, Talbert's that his the member February to Talbert, had to fully a Richard October computer were documenting attachments dated responding advising as prisoner, requesting computer Form updated, recently reflect from prisoner, staff library and 2011, library Request another Office, prison 15, advising prison Offender petitioner from AEDPA, letter December the General's the the dated by letter by a updated documents after the Accordingly, The AND Court, APPROVE report 2012 of the the for the reasons judgment The pursuant 600 days of to with from the be to No. the Appellate (ECF DENIED entered in final Clerk order AND Norfolk, date of Procedure, See of "a right." to Court, such Rule U.S.C. 22(b) declines Miller-El to v. a United 23510, 21, that WITH the and that PREJUDICE further judgment written States within judgment. § the GRANTED the substantial 28 in March on ORDERED is ADOPT ORDERED respondent. filing Virginia entry demonstrate the forth filed be It hereby set DISMISSED from by this 11) report. appeal of Judge No. favor of pursuant appealability. be does therefore, the constitutional Court, is, dismiss may record, Magistrate in Street, to the is OVERRULED. recommendations it 1) objection stated this the failed a and petitioner Granby has (ECF and States 19), motion petition reviewed findings United No. respondent's appeal having the (ECF that the petitioner's notice thirty the issue of the Cockrell, 537 denial Therefore, Federal a Rules certificate U.S. (30) petitioner 2253(c)(2). of of Courthouse, The showing entered 322, of of 335-36 (2003). The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to the limitations period expired with respect to the petitioner's claims, they exclusively concern other prisoners and not the petitioner, and the prison officials' responses in these documents suggest that the prison library computer was in fact up to date. - 5 - petitioner and to counsel of record for the respondent. Raymond Af Jackson JJntedfitittPBPJHtdaftft^»JUDGE Norfolk, , Virginia 2012 - 6 -
]]>
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.
