Paduano v. Clarke, No. 7:2017cv00540 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/2/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE LJ.S.DtST. ATRM COUR NOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITE D STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT OF W RGIN IA RO AN O U D IVISIO N N0 J BK c, DEPU JOSEPH LOUISPADUAN O, Petitioner, V. H AR OLD W .CIA RIG , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 ' Ey cL ax cL CASE N O .7:17CV00540 O PIN ION By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge O n Septem ber 27, 2018,the courtdenied Paduano's W rit of H abeas Com us and declined to issue a certificate of appealabilitp Paduano v.Clatke,N o.7:17CV00540,2018 WL 4655758(W.D.Va.Sept.27,2018).Paduano,aVirginiainmateproceedingbycounsel, flled amotion to alteroramend the judgmentpursuantto Rule 59 oftheFederalRulesof CivilProcedure. ForthereasonsthatfoEow,them otion isD EN IE D . 1. A courtmay amend oralter a judgmentunder Rule 59(e) <ç(1)to accommodate an intervening changein controlling law;(2)to accountfornew evidence notavailableattdal; or(3)to cortectaclearerrorof1aw orpreventmanifestinjustice.''Hutchisonv.Staton,994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Tflmportantly, however, a Rule 59(e) modon for reconsideraéon m ay notbe used to rreatgue the factsand 1aw originally argtzed in thepazdes' Paduano v. Clarke briefs.''' Pro'ectsM Doc. 24 t.Co.v.D nCo Int'l L.L.C.,17 F.Supp.3d 539,541 (. E.D.Va. 2014)(quoting United Statesv.Snaithûeld Foods,969 F.Supp.975,977 (E.D.Va.1997)). Tllisstandard is narrowly construed,as a Rule 59(e)motion is Tffan extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.''' Pac.Jns,Co.v.Aat N-at't-pl irelns.Co-.,148 F.3d 396,403 - (4th Cir.1993)(quodng 11W righteta1.,FederalPracticeand Proceduzej2810.1,at124 (2d Dockets.Justia.com ed.1995))9seeDurkin v.Talor,444F.Supp.879,889(E.D.Va.1977)rfWhatevezmaybe the purpose ofRule 59(e)itshould notbe supposed thatitisintended to givean unhappy liégantoneadditionalchanceto swaythejudge.>). II. In hism otion forreconsidezation,Paduano zaisessix couztezzozs: (1)thecotzrt'sfindingofprocedtzraldefaultastoportionsofCbim 6and Cllims8and 9 w aserroneous; (2)the courtignored Paduano'sallegadonsand relied on biased evidence in improperly dismissing Clnim 1; (3)the court improperly distnissed Clnim 2 by relying on biased, uncorroborated testim ony and speculation; (4)thecourtimpzoperlydislnissed Cllim 4 by notconcluding thatPaduano'spsychiattic issueswould have resulted in suppression oflaisstatem entsand in a lessersentence; (5)the courtimproperly disrnissed Cl/ims 4,5,and 6 withoutconsidering allofthe evidence; (6)the courterred in disrnissing Cbim 7 becausethedate ofthe sexualassaultofT.H. w ascridcalto Paduano'sdefense. Id.at7-20.1 1Petitioneralsomakesseveralgeneralallegations: (1) the courtdid notpresume the truth of facmalallegations ofthe petition and drawing reasonableinferencestherefrom ; (2) (3) (4) thecoul' tdidnotproperlyapplybindingprecedentinPaduano'scase; thecourtdidnotconsiderthesum totalityofthecircumstancesofthefailuresoftrialcounsel andprosecutorialm isconduct; in denying his petition,the courtunjustly punished Paduano for notbeing clairvoyant regardingproceduraldefault;and (5) thecourtdidnotaddressPaduano'sacmalilmocenceargument. Paduano's m otion m ostly presents issues that the court already ruled upon,either expressly orby reasonable im plication,when the cotutdenied peddoner'shabeasapplicaéon and declined to issue a cerdficate of appealabilitp N evertheless, he fails to show an intervening change in conttolling law,new evidence notava' tlable attrial,a clearerroroflaw, ozmanifestinjustice. Even though themajority ofPaduano'smötion doesnotsaésfythe requirementsofRule59(e),thecourtw111brieflydiscusshisargum ents. 111. Atthe thteshold,Paduano assertsthatthe courterred when itapplied an fferroneous standard offacts''by notpresunling tlae ttuth ofPaduano's factualallegaéonsand drawing reasonable inferences therefrom .z Paduano states:<<A11allegadons of the com plninant are taken as true and allreasonable inferences drawn in the com plainant's favor.'' Chao v. mvendellW oods,Inc.,415 F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005).Paduanoiscorrectthatthefedezal courtfçmustacceptas tnle a habeaspetition'swell-pleaded allegations $utnotitslegal conclusionsl.':Townesv.Jarvis,577F.3d 543,550 (4th Cir.2009)(internalquotation marks and citation omitted).However,Tfwhen astatecourthasadjudicated ahabeasclnim onthe m erits,...the petiéonerm ustallege facts suffcientto m eetthe exacting standard setforth Br.in Supp.ofM ot.forRecons.3,ECF N o.21. 2SPecifically, Paduanocontendsthatthecourtdid notacceptastruethefollow ing allegations: (1) when Paduanowasseized athismother'sresidence,heimmediately requested alawyerin hismother's presence; (2) Paduanoexpresslyrefusedpermissionforthesearchofhisproperty; (3) Paduanowasinseverepainwhileincustodyinthepatrolvehicle; (4) Paduano cleûrly and expresslyrefusedto waivehisM irandarightsbutpolicecontinuedto question him whilehewasin physicalpain; (5) therecordingofthepartoftheinterrogationwherePaduanorefusedtowaivehisrightsand/ordiscussedhis extrem epain/discom for' tw aseithernotrecorded ortherecording wascorrupted; (6) Paduanorepeatedlyrequestedanattorneybutwasdenied;and (7) Paduano'strialcounselonlyspoketoPaduanotwice. Thecourtaddressedevery listedallegation inthememorandum opinion exceptfor(7),which isdiscussed inthis opinion. 3 in 28 U.S.C.j 2254$). Id.at551(state court'sdeterminaéon mustbeureasonable or contrary to federallaw). Similatly,j 2254/)resttictsfederalsecond-guessing ofa state court'sdete= ination offacm alissuesand apetitioner'sabilityto raise Tfnew''factsin federal court. 28 U.S.C. 2254/) (requiring clear and convincing evidence to rebut the Presum péon thatthe statecourt'sdetermination on a factualissue is correct,and reqlliring a new rule ofconstitaztional1aw or a previously undiscoverable facm alpreclicate to allege new facts). ln Error 1,Paduano aversthatthe couzt'stnlling thatportions ofClnim 6 and Clnim s 8 and 9 w ere procedurally defaulted wascontrary to law underM artinez v.R an,566 U .S.1 (2012). However,asthe courtexplained in itsmemorandum opinion,the Supreme Cotzrt carved outanlinorequitablerule thatfflajllowlsja federalhabeas courtto heara cbim p. f ineffecéve assistance Df trial counsel when an attorney' s errors (or the absence ofan - attorney)caused a proceduraldefaultin an initial-review collateralproceedinp'' M arénez, 566 U.S.at13 (emphasis added). Therefore,Paduano may notestablish cause fot the proceduraldefaultundetM arénezbecausetheyarenotineffectiveassistanceclnim s.Seeids; M em .Op.6-8(discussing M artinez'sapplication). Paduano also nakedly assertsin the m otion fotreconsideraéon thathe hasovercom e proceduraldefaultffgilfforno otherreason,the fundamentlnniscarriage ofjuséce thathas occuzred ...criesout forreliefwhen the case isconsidered in itstotalitp'' Br.in Supp.of M ot.forRecons.8. Paduano also states! Contrary to the D isM ssal,Paduano has asserted his actualinnocence in llis Petidon....Paduano's acm alinnocence is an inference that can reasonably gbejdrawn from thefactsalleged in thePedtion. Paduano isendtled to such inferencesatthem oéon to disrrlissstage ofthiscase. 4 Br.in Supp.of M ot.for Recons.19-20. H ow ever,Paduano clid not specifically allege a fundamentalmiscarriageofjustice argumentin eitherllispeétion orresponse.3 Paduano is notpro . K apd the courtisnota mind-reader- he is notentitled to a liberalconsttucéon of his pleadings and the courtwillnot m anufacture argum ents, facts,and law for him . See Erickson v.Patdus,551U.S.89,94 (2007)r pro . K litigantsentitled to liberalconstruction); Nickerson v.Lee,971 F.2d 1125,1135 (4th Cir.1992)overrtzled on other oundsb Yeatts v.An elone,166 F.3d 255 (4th Cir.1999)Sabeaspetitionermustpresentevidence;bare h allegationsofconstittztionalerrorarenotsufficientgroundsforrelief). Therefore,thecoutt need notaddresstllisatgum enton reconsideration. Regardless,Paduano'scounselappearsto lnisunderstand thatçflniscarriage ofjustice'' hasa speciik legalm earling in habeas:a com pelling showing ofacttzalinnocencethatenables a federal courtto review the merits of otherwise defaulted and/or tim e-barred cbim s. Tele uz v.Zook,806 F.3d 803,807 (4th Cit.2015). In general,ffhabeas corpuspetdons thatadvance a substantialclsim ofacm alinnocenceaze extrem ely rare.'' Schlu v.D elo,513 U.S.298,322 (1995).To statesuch acbim,thepetidonermustsatisfya ffrigorous''burden by ffsupportgingqlzisallegationsofconsdmtionalerrorwith new reliableevidence- whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence- thatwasnotpresented attrial.'' Schlu ,513 U.S.at324. Further,Tfgljavingbeen convicted ...gpetitioner)no longerhasthebenefitofthepresumption ofinnocence.To the 3Paduano adm its as much in the m otion for reconsideration. Br.irlSupp.ofM ot.for Recons. 19-20 (acknowledgingthatactualinnocencewasnevertçexplicitlystatedinhisPetition''). contrary,gpetitioner)comesbeforethehabeascourtwith astrong- andin thevastmajority ofthe casesconclusive- presum ption ofgtul 't.?7 Id.at326 n.42. In reviewing an actualinnocence clnim ,the districtcourtm ay consider:the natare of evidence,Housev.Bell,547U.S.518,537(2006),theHmingofsubmissions,Mcouigginv. Perkins,569U.S.383,386 (2013),thecredibility ofwitnesses,House,547 U.S.at537,552, and the probaéve force ofthe newly supplem ented record. H ouse,547 U .S.at5389Sh e v.Bell,593F.3d372,381 (4th Cit.2010). Afterperfornainjthisanalysis,thedisttictcourt mustdeterrnine whether ffitismore likely than notthatno reasonable jutor would have found peédoner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'? Schlu , 513 U.S.at 328. A clistdct co l zrtm ay havegreater clifficulty determ ining the c 'redibility ofevidence on a T'cold recordy'' butthe Fourth Citctzitgzants the disttictcourtthe disctetion to detettnine thatthe evidence isinadequate or unreliable enough to disnnissa pedtion withoutan evidenéary heo ng. See Tele zv.Pearson,689 F.3d 322,331 (4t.h Cir.2012). In the m em orandum opinion,the cotlrtcliscussed Paduano's ffnew''evidence,wllich included an allegation that the ttanscript and recording were incom plete or m odified,and sworn statem ents from Paduano,hism otherLoretta,and CatrollD ouglasFalls. Fizst,Falls' affidavitis neither exculpatory nor com pelling. See M em . Op. 12-13. Second,Loretta's afûdavitditectly conflictswith testim ony and ptesents ctedibility issues. See M em .O p.10. Thitd,Paduano'ssimple asserdon thathe isinnocentand thathe invoked llisM irandarights is notcom pelling new evidence ascontem plated by Schlu . In fact,itisexactly the type of Tfevidence''thatthe Suprem e Cotzrt soughtto exclude from the fundam entalnniscarriage of juséce analysis. See Schlu ,513 U.S.at324 (specifically reqllidng ffexculpatory sciendfic evidence,trtzstworthy eyewitnessaccounts,orcridcalphysicalevidence');Bousle v.United States,523 U.S.614,623 (1998)(ffactualinnocencemeansfacmalinnocence,notmezeLega -l insufficienc ') (emphasis added and internalquotation marks ornitted). Lastly,Loretta's statem entand the asseréon thatthe interdew transcriptand recotding were tam pered with, withoutm oze,are not com pelling evidence ofactualinnocence. Therefore,Paduano isnot enétled toreliefunderRule59(e). ln Error 2, Paduano contends that the court erred in disnlissing Cbim 1 by m ischaracterizing Paduano's allegaéons and overem phasizing the sttength of the Com m onwealth's case regarding the possession of a flrearm charge. The court fully addressed the argum entin the m em orandum opinion and Paduano failsto dem onsttate that heisotherwiseendtled tozeliefundetRule59(e).SeeM em .Op.10-12.4 In Error 3,Paduano asserts thatthe courterred in dismissing Clnim 2 because the courtshould nothave telied on Tiffany'sbiased and uncorroborated tesHm ony. The coutt 6111y addtessed the atgum entin the m em orandum opinion and Paduano failsto dem onstrate thatheisotherwiseentitledtoreliefunderRule59(e).SeeMem.Op.13-16.Also,thecotztt notes that the m odon to reconsider never addresses the court's nlling on Stdckland prejudice- he fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that, even if counsel's Perform ance was defkient and the court had suppressed the photos of the fuearm s,the outcom e ofthe proceeding would havebeen different. 4I11Errors2 and 5, Paduano also complainsthatthe courtdallied in deuncorroborated''and çtunevidenced speculation''by determining thatcounsel&'could have''beenactingreasonably.Br.in Supp.ofM ot.forRecons.13, 18;See M em .Op.l6,22. ThecourtadvisesPaduano thatsuch an assessm entisirlherentin thedeterm inationsthat afederalhabeascourtmustmake. SeeSexton v.Beaudreaux,138 S.Ct.2555,2559 (2018)(perclzriam)C$A fairmindedjuristcould conclude thatcounsel'sperformance wasnotdefkientbecausecolmselreasonably could havedeterminedthatthemotiontosuppresswouldhavefailed.'');M oodyv.Polk,408F.3d 141,148(4thCir.2005) (determining thatçtcounselcould reasonably havedetermined thatfurthermeetingswith ltllepetitionerqwerenot helpfulinpreparinghisdefense''). InEzror4,Paduanoaversthatthecolzrtezredin dismissingClnim 3because:(1)his Kfpsychiattic issueswere m aterialto the inqut 'ry ofwhethetPaduano'swillwasovercom e by the oppressive interrogaéon ofthe police and theirfaillzre to allow Paduano to urinate until after he told the police whatthey wanted to hear'';and (2) Tfpsyclliatric disorders were m aterialatPaduano's sentencing butwere noteven m entioned by Paduano'strialcounselat the sentencing hearinp'' Br.in Supp.ofM ot.forRecons.15. The courtpreviouslyrtzled on these issues and Paduano hasnotdem onstrated thathe is otherwise entitled to teliefunder Rule59(e). ln Error5,Paduano contendsthatthecourtfailed to consider allofthe evidencein dism issing Clnim s 4, 5, and 6. Paduano presents one atgum ent that the court did not address:thatcounseldid notproperly prepate for the crim inalproceedings because he only m etPaduano twice before trial. H ow ever,Paduano did notasserta cllim based upon that factin hispetiéon he m erely m entioned itin the f<Facts''section ofhisbrief. Regardless, ffthere is no established nzinim um num ber ofm eetings between counseland clientprior to trialnecessary to prepare an attorney to provide effective assistance of counsel.'' M ood , 408 F.3d at 148. The petitioner bears the burden ofdem onstrae g that,butfozaddidonal m eedngs,the outcom e ofthe proceeding would have been different. Paduano failsto m ake such a dem onstzaéon. Futtherm ore,the courtruled on the other issues and Paduano has notshown thatheisotherwiseentitled to reliefunderRule59(e). In Error 6,Paduano assel'ts that the date of the clnim ed sexualassaultwas cm cial because Paduano could have estabzshed an alibi. The courtruled on thisissueand Paduano hasnotshown thatheisotherwiseentitled toreliefunderRule59(e). 8 IV . Further,a certificate of appealability isrequired to appealthe denialofa m oéon to alteroramend ajudgmentin ahabeascase.The courtdeniesthepeétionera certifkate of appealability,becausejuristsofreason would notfind thecourt'sresoludon ofpeddoner's m odon forreconsideration to bedebatable. Accordingly,the courtD EN IE S the m otion for reconsideration,ECF N o.20. The courtfurtherD EN IE S aceréficate ofappealability. EN TER :Tllis day ofN ovem ber,2018. '' . @ y .- - . ù' (.' E' r,' . 3 ! 7 1 ., . Chief 'ted StatesDistrictludge 9 11) .
]]>
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.
