Davis v. Circuit Court of Balto. City et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/30/2015. (c/m 11/30/2015 bus, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Soutltem Division
*
MATTHEW
DAVIS,
*
*
Petitioner,
Case No.: GJH-15-962
v.
*
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE
CITY, et al.
*
*
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
Pending is Matthew Davis's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
S
2254.1 Respondent seeks to dismiss the petition as time-barred and Petitioner has not alleged he
was in custody when the Petition was filed. ECF NO.4. Petitioner was granted an opportunity to
respond (ECF No.5), but has not done so.
After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and applicable law, the Court finds a hearing
unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014): Rule 8, "Rules Governing Section 2254
Proceedings in the United States District Courts"; see also Fisher v. Lee. 215 F.3d 438, 454-55
(4th Cir. 2000) (stating there is no entitlement to a hearing under 28 U.S.C.
S 2254( e)(2)
except
in limited circumstances not applicable in this case). For the reasons that follow, the Petition will
be DENIED and DISMISSED as time-barred.
I.
BACKGROUND
Davis filed this Petition on April 1,2015, challenging his conviction for attempted
robbery in 2008 pursuant to a guilty plea in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City in
I
Davis also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No.2), which will be granted by a separate Order.
case number 505145038.2
incarceration,
beginning
In an unreported
Maryland
August
affirmed
On October 7, 2008, the Circuit Court sentenced
Davis to twelve years
July 17,2005.
opinion filed on July 20, 2010, the Court of Special Appeals of
Davis's judgment
of conviction.
ECF No. 4_2.3 The mandate issued on
19, 2010. ECF No. 4-1 at 14. Davis did not seek further review of this determination
the Court of Appeals of Maryland.4
/d.
On January 23, 2012, Davis initiated post-conviction
Baltimore
City. ECF No. 4-1 at 14. On September
file a belated motion for modification
conviction
petition was withdrawn
post-conviction
II.
in
of sentence.
with prejudice.
relief that was dismissed
proceedings
in the Circuit Court for
19, 2012, the court granted Davis the right to
Id. at 15-16. On the same day, the postId. at 16. Davis later filed another petition for
by the Circuit Court on January
15, 2014. !d. at 17.
DISCUSSION
"The Supreme
application
Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain
for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
requirement
an
is jurisdictional.
S 2254(a)
(2012) (emphasis
of the Constitution
or laws or
added). The custody
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989); see also Dickerson v.
United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.39 (2000). Respondents
maintain that Davis does not allege
For purposes of assessing the timeliness of the Petition under 28 U.S.c. S2244(d)( I)-(2), the Court deems the
Petition delivered to prison authorities for mailing on April 1,2015. the date it was signed by Davis. ECF No. I at 7;
see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); United Slates v. Dorsey, 988 F. Supp. 917.919-20 (D. Md. 1998); see
also Rule 3(d), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings (discussing the mailbox rule).
2
3
The state case is captioned Matthew David, aka Matthew Davis v. State of MaJ}lland. ECF No. 4-2.
Davis states he filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals, provid ing "2008-20 I I" as
the date of the decision rendered. ECF No. I at 3. It is likely that Davis, a self-represented litigant. refers to the
decision issued by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
4
2
he was in state custody under the judgment challenged at the time he tiled his petition.
Respondents urge dismissal of the Petition for failure to meet the "in custody" requirement.
In the alternative, Respondents seek dismissal of the Petition as untimely tiled. For the
reasons that follow, even if Davis has satisfied the "in custody" requirement, this case is timebarred and will be dismissed.
A one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions in non-capital cases for a
person convicted in a state court. See 28 U.S.c. S 2244(d) (2012).5 This one-year period is tolled
while properly filed post-conviction proceedings are pending and may otherwise be equitably
tolled. See 28 U.S.c. S2244(d)(2); Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2000).
As noted, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed Davis's judgment of
conviction, and the mandate issued on August 19, 2010. Davis did not seek further review of this
determination in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Under these facts, Davis' conviction
became final and the limitations period started to run on Tuesday, September 7, 2010. See Md.
5
This section provides:
(I)
A I-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of
habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.
The limitation period shall run from the latest of(A)
the date on which the judgment
became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking
such review;
(8)
the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by
such State action;
(C)
the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized
by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review; or
(D)
the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
(2)
the time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or
claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this
subsection.
3
Rule 8-302 (requiring certiorari petition to be filed in the Court of Appeals no later than fifteen
days after the Court of Special Appeals issues its mandate). The one-year limitations period
expired on September 7, 2011, several months before Davis initiated state post-conviction
review. Although his state post-conviction petition could have tolled the limitations period, that
petition was not filed until January 23, 2012.
Davis filed the instant federal petition on April 1, 2015, long after the one-year
limitations period had expired. Davis did not file any related and "properly filed state postconviction or other collateral proceedings" to toll the limitations period. See 28 U.S.C.
~2244(d)(2). Davis does not argue principles of equitable tolling apply here. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the petition as untimely.
III.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court declines to
issue a Certificate of Appealability because Davis has not made a substantial showing of a denial
of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.c.
(2003) (in order to satisfy
S 2253(c),
S 2253(c)(2);
Miller-E1 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,338
"a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would
find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong"); Slack v.
McDani~/, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that when reliefis denied on procedural grounds, a
petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right).
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For these reasqns, the Court will deny and dismiss the Petition as untimely filed, and
declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. A separate Order follows.
ft--#----
-tV\.
Dated:
November~O
,2015
GEORGE 1. HAZEL
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?