Tully v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00571 - Document 36 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 08/27/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cl-Enrs OFFICE U.s.DIST.GOURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION At6 2 ï2g1j JUL C.DUDLR BY; LERK t) C .RK T H O M AS TU LLY , Petitioner, V. H AROLD CLARK E, R espondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CivilAction No.7:18cv00571 M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N By:M ichaelF.Urbansld C hiefU nited StatesD istrictJudge Petition'erThom asTully,a Virgirliainmateproceeding pro K ,filed a petition form it of . habeascorpuspursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 2254to challengehiscriminaljudgmententeredbythç Circuit Courtof Frederick Cotmty. TMs m atter is before the courton respondent's m otion to dism iss. After reviewing the record,the courtconcludes thatrespondent's m otion to dism iss mustbegrantedandTully'spetitionmustbedismissedwithoutprejudiceassuccessive. 1. ln 2007,the CircuitCourtofFrederick County convicted Tully ofbrenking and entering with the intent to comm it assaultand battezy,malicious wotmding,m isdem eanor assault and battery,and two countsofmaliciously causingbodily injury by acaustic substance. Thecourt sentenced llim to twentp fiveyearsofincarceration.Tully appealed,and the CourtofAppealsof V irginia and the Suprem e CourtofVirginia both denied hispetitions. Tully tsled two petitions forwritsofhabeascorpus,and the Suprem eCourtofVirginiadenied both petitions,aswellasa petition for a reheming. Tully then filed a federalhabeaspetition in the United StatesDiskict Tully v. Clarke Doc. 36 CourtfortheEastem DistdctofVirginia,which the courtdenied in 2011.See Tullv v.Johnson, No.3:10cv299 (E.D.Va.Feb.23,2011). In 2015,Tully filed a third state habeas petition in the CircuitCourtofFrederick County, claim ing thatthe Com monwea1th withheld exculpatory evidence and knowingly presented false Dockets.Justia.com testim ony. The CircuitCotlrtfound theclaimsdefaulted and withoutm erit. The Suprem eCourt ofVirginia refused hisappeal. In 2016,Tully filed a second federalhabeas petition,raising the snm e claim s as in his 2015statehabeaspetition. SeeTullvv.Clarke,7:16cv296 (W .D.Va.M ay 8,2017). Thecourt determined thathispetition was successive and thathis claim swere procedtlrally defaulted and w ithoutm eritand,thus,dism issed the action. Id. Tully has now fled his third federalhabeas petition wllich the courtwilldism issasan unauthodzed,successivepetitiom l II. Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective D eath Penalty Act of 1996 (GGAEDPA''),thecourtmay considerasecond orsuccessive j 2254petition only upon specific authorization f' rom the United StatesCotlrtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuitthatthe claim sin the petition meet certain criteria. 28 U.S.C. j2244(19. tiln the absence of pre-filing authorization Egom the Fourth Circuitj,the district court lacks judsdiction to consider a gsuccessive)application.'' United Statesv.W inestock,340 F.3d 200,205 (4th Cir.2003);see also Burton v.Stewart,549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007). Tully already fled a j 2254 petition challenging the snme convictions and sentence,and he has notsubm itted any evidence thathe hasobtained authorization from the Fourth Circuitto file asuccessivepetition. N evertheless,Sçitissettled 1aw thatnotevery num erically second petition isa Gsecond or successive'petition withinthemeaning oftheAEDPA.''InreW illinms,444F.3d 233,235(4th Cir.2006)(quoting 28 U.S.C.j 2244). A nllmerically second collateralattack petition should notbeconsideredsecond orsuccessivewhere:afirstpetition isdismissedwithoutprejudicefor procedtlralreasons,such asfailtlre to exhauststate courtremedies,1d.at235 (citing Slack v. 1Tully raisesm any claim s, including multiple instancesofineffectiveassistance ofcounsel2prosecutorial misconduct,courterror,and a due processviolation based ôn an aftidavitprovided by one victim lndicating that although shetestifiedattrialthatTullydidnotlivewith her,in fact,hedidlivewith her. 2 M cDnniel,529U.S.473,485-89 (2000);thereisaEtnew judgmentinterveningbetween thetwo habeaspetitions,''M acwood v.Patterson,561U.S.320,341-42 (2010),In re Taylor,171F.3d 185,187-88 (4th Cir.1999);orGGthefactsrelied on bythemovantseekingresentencing did not existwhenthenumerically firstEpetition)wasûled and adjudicated,''United Statesv.Hairston, 754 F.3d 258,262 (4th Cir.2014).2 None ofthesecircumstancesapply to the instantj2254 petition becauseTully'sfirstj2254petition wasadjudicated op itsmeritsandnotdismissedfor procedttralreasons,therehasbeen nonew judgmentinterveninghisoriginaland currentj2254 petitions,and the underlying facts on wlzich Tully now relies existed when he filed his first j2254 petition. Accordingly,the courtwillg' rant respondent's motion to dismiss Tully's petition withoutprejudiceassuccessive.ThecourtnotesthatTullymay seek certificationfrom the Urlited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuitto have this courtreview a successive j2254motion.Tullymustsubmitacopyofthesuccessivej2254motiontotheFourth Circuit, alongwithamotionrequestingathree-judgepanelcertifkationthatthedistrictcourtmayreview thesuccessivej2254motion.See28U.S.C.j2244.A FotlrthCircuitform andinstructionsfor filing this m otion have already been provided to Tully by counselforrespondentand are also available from the Fourth Circuit atthe following address:Office of the Clerk,United States CourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuit,900 E.M ain St,Richmond,VA 23219. ,!4 *, ENTER:ThisW 'dayofAugust, 2019. /+/ 'z'e?y J - CM K U 'e esD istrid Judge u 2Tully'sargumentthatthecourtshouldentertain hispetition based on M couiggin v. Perkins,569 U.S.383 (2013),ismisplaced.TheSupremeCourtinMcouiccindeterminedthataviableclaim ofactualinnocencecould,in some circumstances,excuse proceduraldefaultand allow othem ise barred claims to be heard in a federalhabeas petition. 569U.S.at392. However,the courtexpressly conined itsholdingto fl 'rsthabeaspetitions. Id.at396-97; InreBolin,811F.3d403,411(11th Cir.2016).ThisisnotTully'sflrsthabeaspetitionand,therefore,Mcouiggin hasno effect.
]]>
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.
