In Re: John McFadden

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion denying Motion for authorization to file successive habeas application (Local Rule 22(d)) [999603983-2] Originating case number:. [999858868]. [15-206]

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-206

In re:

JOHN EARL MCFADDEN,
Movant.

On Motion for Authorization to File Successive § 2254 Petition
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Richmond.

Argued:

January 27, 2016

Decided:

June 20, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, AND WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Motion denied by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote
opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Gregory joined.

the

ARGUED: Anatoly Smolkin, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Movant.
Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Respondent.
ON BRIEF: Paul S. Caiola, GALLAGHER EVELIUS &
JONES LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Movant.
Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General of Virginia, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

WYNN, Circuit Judge:
John

Earl

successive
§ 2254.

McFadden

habeas

moves

corpus

for

authorization

application 1

pursuant

to

to

28

file

a

U.S.C.

His claim is based on newly discovered facts suggesting

that his trial counsel did not communicate to him a favorable
plea

offer.

However,

the

claim

does

not

fall

within

the

exceptions to the bar on successive habeas applications under 28
U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)

because

it

neither

arises

from

a

new

constitutional rule of law, nor introduces evidence relevant to
an evaluation of McFadden’s guilt.

Accordingly, we deny the

motion.
I.
In December 2006, a Virginia state jury convicted McFadden
of eleven offenses, including multiple counts of robbery and use
of

a

firearm

in

the

commission

of

a

felony.

McFadden

is

currently serving an 88-year sentence for those convictions in a
Virginia prison.

Over the years, McFadden has filed a direct

appeal, multiple state habeas petitions, 2 and a federal habeas

1

Although “it is settled law that not every numerically second
petition is a ‘second or successive’ petition,” In re Williams,
444 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2006), McFadden presents his
petition as successive, so we have no occasion to question that
characterization.
2 Most recently, in May 2015, McFadden filed a fourth state
habeas petition, which was dismissed as time barred under Va.
Code § 8.01-654(A)(2).
Because that provision “contains no
exception allowing a petition to be filed after” the limitations
period has expired, Hines v. Kuplinski, 591 S.E.2d 692, 693 (Va.
2

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

application

Filed: 06/20/2016

challenging

his

Pg: 3 of 6

conviction

and

sentence,

none

of

which have been successful.
McFadden

now

alleges

in

a

proposed

successive

habeas

application that despite multiple attempts over the years to
obtain

his

entire

case

file

from

his

trial

and

appellate

counsel, it was not until May 2014 that he was provided with a
particular

document

constitutionally

suggesting

ineffective

that

his

assistance.

counsel

That

provided

document

is

a

proposed plea agreement, signed by McFadden’s trial counsel but
not by the government, stipulating that McFadden would plead
guilty to one count of robbery and one related count, and would
be sentenced to no more than ten years of active incarceration.
McFadden

claims

that

his

counsel

supposed

offer,

that

McFadden

failed

would

have

to

communicate

accepted

it

this

had

he

known about it, and that he was prejudiced as a result.
McFadden has filed a motion for pre-filing authorization
with this Court, a procedural prerequisite for the filing of a
successive

federal

habeas

application.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A).
II.
2004), McFadden’s claim may be treated as exhausted, regardless
of whether McFadden is pursuing an appeal in Virginia state
court,
Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997)
(“[T]he exhaustion requirement for claims not fairly presented
to the state’s highest court is technically met . . . when a
state procedural rule would bar consideration [of] the claim
. . . .” (citations omitted)).
3

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

We

may

Filed: 06/20/2016

grant

McFadden’s

Pg: 4 of 6

pre-filing

authorization

motion

“only if . . . the application makes a prima facie showing that
[it]

satisfies

the

§ 2244(b)(3)(C).

requirements”

outlined

below.

28

U.S.C.

A prima facie showing is “simply a sufficient

showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the
district court.”

In re Williams, 330 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir.

2003) (quoting Bennett v. United States, 118 F.3d 468, 469–70
(7th Cir. 1997)).
McFadden’s claim was not previously presented in a federal
habeas application.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

However, he

must nevertheless make a prima facie showing either that his
claim relies on a new, retroactive, and previously unavailable
rule of constitutional law, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), or that
(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due
diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and
viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant
guilty of the underlying offense.
Id. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
McFadden concedes that his claim does not depend on a new
constitutional rule of law.
filing

authorization

motion

Rather, he seeks to ground his prein

discovered facts exception.

4

Section

2244(b)(2)(B)’s

newly

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/20/2016

However,

even

assuming

a

Pg: 5 of 6

prima

facie

showing

that

“the

factual predicate for [McFadden’s] claim could not have been
discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence,”
id. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i), the newly discovered facts McFadden puts
forth are not “sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence

that,

factfinder

but

would

for

have

constitutional
found

the

error,

applicant

no

reasonable

guilty

of

the

underlying offense,” id. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
On the contrary, the evidence McFadden offers, a supposed
plea offer, would simply have no bearing on the deliberations of
a

“reasonable

guilt.

factfinder”

regarding

McFadden’s

innocence

or

Id.; see Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998)

(characterizing Section 2244(b)(2)(B) as requiring a “prisoner
[to] show[], among other things, that the facts underlying [his]
claim

establish

his

innocence

by

clear

and

convincing

evidence”); Outlaw v. Sternes, 233 F.3d 453, 454–55 (7th Cir.
2000) (concluding that evidence of judicial bias did not satisfy
Section 2244(b)(2)(B) in part because it was not relevant to the
prisoner’s innocence); In re Bryan, 244 F.3d 803, 805 (11th Cir.
2000)

(deeming

Section

2244(b)(2)(B)

not

satisfied

because

evidence that defense counsel was an active alcoholic did not
call

into

Villafuerte

question
v.

the

Stewart,

142

jury’s
F.3d

determination
1124,

1126

(9th

of

guilt);

Cir.

1998)

(holding that evidence of judicial bias does not satisfy Section
5

Appeal: 15-206

Doc: 42

Filed: 06/20/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

2244(b)(2)(B) because it “does not add to or subtract from the
evidence of . . . guilt”); cf. United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003) (concluding that newly discovered
evidence

that

a

prisoner’s

appellate

attorney

was

disbarred

could not permit the filing of a federal prisoner’s successive
application

under

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

because

it

merely

“contest[ed] the fairness of the criminal proceedings” without
touching upon the applicant’s guilt).
Newly discovered evidence that a defendant may have lost
out on a favorable plea offer fits neither of Section 2244(b)’s
exceptions.

McFadden’s

pre-filing

authorization

motion

must

therefore be denied.
III.
Because McFadden has failed to make a prima facie showing
that his application meets the requirements of Section 2244(b),
we deny his motion to file a successive habeas application.

MOTION DENIED

6