Jones v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00136 - Document 20 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 11/13/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKI:QF/IfX tpr@,$1$% 66UX ATlMN?#kk% V# ' F#LED IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FO R TH E W E STER N DISTR ICT O F V IR G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N N2V !% 2218 JUL BY: . . EP ) LE M IC H AE L L.JO N ES, Petitioner, c aseN o.7:18c' v00136 V. M EM O M N DU M O PINION HAROLD W .CLARKE, By:H on.Jackson L .K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. M ichael L.Jones,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro.K ,filed a petition for a writ of habeascorpus,ptlrsuantto 28 U.S.C.j2254,challenging thevalidity ofhisconfinementon a judgmentin the Halifax Cotmty CircuitCotlrtfor possession of cocaine with the intentto distribute as a third or subsequent offense. Respondent filed a m otion to dism iss, and Jones responded,m aking them atterripe fordisposition. A fterreview ofthe record,lgrantthe m otion to dism iss and dism issthepetition. ProceduralH istory Jones is detained ptlrsuantto a finalorderentered by the circuitcourton July 20,2015. Jonesdidnotappeal. On M arch 9,2017,Jonesfiled a statehabeaspetition in the Suprem eCourt ofVirginia. The Suprem e CourtofVirginia denied hispetition. On oraboutFebrtzary 12,2018, Jonesfiled the currentpetition. Jones v. Clarke Doc. 20 II. Tim e-Bar Jones's claim s are tim e-barred. Under the A nti-terrorism Effective D eath Penalty Act (AEDPA),aone-yearperiodoflimitationforfederalhabeascorpusnmsfrom thelatestof: (A)the date on which thejudgmentbecame finalby the conclusion of directreview orthe expiration ofthe tim e for seeking such review ; Dockets.Justia.com (B)the date on which theimpedimentto filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or law s of the United States is rem oved,ifthe applicantwasprevented from filing by such State action; (C)the date on wllich the constimtional right asserted was initially recognized by the Suprem e Court,if the righthas been new ly recognized by the Suprem e Courtand m aderetroactively applicableto caseson collateralreview;or (D)the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented couldhavebeen discoveredthroughthe exercise ofduediligence. 28U.S.C.j2244(d)(1). A dditionally,a petitioner can Cltoll''the federalhabeas statute of lim itation in two w ays: stattztory tolling and equitable tolling. Section 2244(*(2)tolls the federallimitation period during thetim ein which $1aproperly filed application forStatepost-conviction orothercollateral review ...ispending.''Equitabletollingocclzrsonlyifa'petitionershows$&ç(1)thathehasbeen pursuinghisrightsdiligently,and(2)thatsomeextraordinarycircumstancestoodinhisway'and prevented timely filing.'' Holland v.Florida, 560 U.S.631,649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo?544:U.S.408,418(2005)). Thecircuitcourt'sfinaljudgmentwasenteredop July20,2015,andJonesdidnotappeal. Therefore,his judgment becnme final on August 19,2015,thirty days after the entry of judgment. Va.Sup.Ct.R.5A:6 (Notice ofappealmustbe filed within tllirty daysoffinal judgment.);Gonzalezv.Thaler,565U.S.134,149(2012)(holdingthat,tmderj2244(d)(1)(A), thejudgmentbecomesfinaltcwhenthetimeforpursuingdirectreview in(theSupremeCottrtj,or in state court,expires''). Jonesthushad oneyear(365 days)from August19,2015 to filehis j2254petition.ThelimitationsperiodexpiredonAugust20,2016. Jones asserts severalargllm entsthatllispetition isnottim e-barred: (1)hisstatehabeaspetition,pursuanttoVa.Code.j 8.01-654,wastimely,andhefiled his federalhabeas petition within one yearofhisstate petition; (2)statehabeaspetitionsareunconstitutionalimpediments;and (3)heisentitledtoequitabletolling. See Br.in Opp.M ot.to D ism iss 1-2,ECF N o.16. H is argum ents are incorrectfor the reasons thatfollow . First,the Virginia and federalhabeas petitions have separate and differentstatm es of lim itations:V irginia istw o years ifthe defendantdoes notpursue directappeal,federalisalw ays oneyear.Therefore,thefederalhabeaslimitationsperiodcanbeeither(1)interdependentor(2) independentofthe Virginia habeas statute oflim itations. Thefederalhabeaslimitation period isinterdependentwhen apetitioner(Gproperly''filesa directand/or collateralappealin state courtwithin one year. 28 U.S.C.j 2244(d)(2). The federal habeas lim itations period is then tolled for the dlzration of the properly filed state proceedings. 1d. H ow ever,the federaland V irginia lim itationsperiods are independentwhen a petitioner, likeJones,waitslongerthanayearafterafinaljudgmenttobring.adirectorcollateralappealin the state cotut W hen theyearthresholdpasses,thefederalhabeas lim itation period willexpire even if the petitioner later timely files a petition in Virginia state court. Under such circtlmstances,the limitations period is not'Strevived''by a tim ely state habeas petition,and statm orytollingplzrsuantto j2244(*(2)isunavailable- thefederalpetition isalreadytmtimely undertheAEDPA. See Villecasv.Johnson,184 F.3d 467,472 (5th Cir.1999)(holding d&a prisonerwillnotbeabletoreviveanexpired LAEDPA)limitationperiodby simply filingastate Petitionincoilformitywithbasicproceduralrequirements''). Second, V irginia's statute of lim itations for filing state habeas petitions is not an unconstitutionalimpedimentascontemplatedby j2244(d)(1)(B). See Ocon-paradav.Yotma, No.3:09cv87,2010 W L 2928590,at*3 (E.D.Va.July 23,2010). To invoke j2244(1)(B),a 3 petitionermustshow that(1)hewaspreventedfrom filingafederalhabeaspetition,(2)by State action,(3)in violation offederallaw. See Ecerton v.Cockrell,334 F.3d 433,436 (5th Cir. 2003).Thepetitioner'smisunderstandingofthe1aw andhisobligationtoexhauststateremedies tGdog)notqualify asançimpedimenttofilinganapplicationcreatedbyStateactioninviolationof theConstitutionorlawsoftheUnitedStates.''' Ocon-parada,2010W L 2928590,at*3 (quoting 28 U.S.C.j 2244(d)(1)(B)). Therefore,Virginia's longer habeas limitation period,or the differences betw een V irginia and federalstam te oflim itations neither (tdeceives a defendant into m issing hisfederaldeadline,''norççacttzally prevents''apetitionerfrom filing hisfederalpetition. Id.;seealsoFerguson v.Palmateer,321F.3d 820,823 (9th Cir.2003)(rejecting argumentsthat Oregon'stwo-yearstatuteoflimitationscreatedanunconstitutionalGitrap''forstateprisoners). Third,therequirementthatJonesfile a statehabeaspetition to exhaustllisclaim sisnot an extraordinary circumstance thatjustifies equitable tolling. See Ocon-parada,2010 W L 2928590,at*3;Ferguson,321 F.3d at823. Exhaustion isa basic proceduralrequirement. ltis notatlexceptionalcircumstance. SeeUnited Statesv.Sosa,364F.3d 507,512 (4th Cir.2004) (collectingcasesholdingthatStignoranceofthe1aw isnotabàsisforequitabletollinf'). 111. For the foregoing reasons, 1 grant Respondent's m otion to dism iss and dism iss the petition fora writofhabeas cop us. Based upon my finding thatPetitionerhas notm ade the requisite substantialshowing ofa denialofa constitutionalrightasrequired by 28 U.S.C.j 22534c),acertificateofap ealabilityisdenied. ENT ERED thi e' day ofN ovem ber,2018. SE 1OR UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT JU D GE 4
]]>
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.
