Ralph v. Scutt
OPINION and ORDER granting 7 respondent's MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying 10 petitioner's MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, Dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 11-CV-11284
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, (3) DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND
(4) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.
Aaron Ralph, (“Petitioner”), presently incarcerated at the Cotton Correctional Facility
in Jackson, Michigan, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, in which he challenges his conviction for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS 750.520b(1)(a), and one count of attempted second-degree
criminal sexual conduct. MICH. COMP. LAWS 750.520c(1)(a). This matter is before the Court
on Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, asserting that the Court should dismiss
the petition as untimely. Petitioner has filed a response to the motion for summary
judgment. He has also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons set forth
herein, the Court agrees with Respondent and dismisses the petition for failure to comply
with the one-year statute of limitations set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court also
denies Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and denies a certificate of
I. Facts and Procedural History
The charges against Petitioner concerned the sexual molestation of his seven-yearold twin half-sisters. Sometime early in 1996, the victims’ mother, Janet Ralph was out
shopping with one of her three sons, Robert Ralph. The victims’ father, Bernie Ralph, had
returned from work and was sleeping in the livingroom. The victims’ two other teenaged
brothers, Jesse and Benton Ralph, were outside in the yard.
Rachel Ralph, who was nine years old at the time of trial, testified that Petitioner took
her into the bathroom and locked the door. He pinned her against a wall and tried to touch
her crotch area. Rachel was able to squirm away and leave the bathroom. Petitioner then
picked up Ruth Ralph, Rachel’s twin, and carried her into the bathroom. Ruth started
screaming, alerting Jesse and Benton. Jesse testified that he heard his sister screaming
and came inside the house and started banging on the locked bathroom door. When he
was unable to get inside, he got Benton. Both boys started pounding on the door.
According to the boys, Petitioner opened the door and told them, “If you tell, I’m going to
shoot you.” Jesse could see Ruth on the floor of the bathroom.
Petitioner then went back inside the bathroom and locked the door. Ruth testified
that he pulled her pants down and forced his fingers into her vagina. He then pulled down
his pants and penetrated her vagina with his penis. When Petitioner attempted to force
Ruth to touch his penis with her hand, she managed to run out of the bathroom. Petitioner
then retrieved a handgun and started to waive it around the house. Bernie Ralph slept
through the entire incident.
The children testified that they were afraid of Petitioner and did not tell their parents
about what happened until after Petitioner had been kicked out of the house.
Petitioner was interviewed by a police detective in March of 1998. After initially
denying doing anything more than wrestling with the girls, Petitioner ultimately admitted that
he put his hands down Ruth’s pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina. The
confession was put in writing by the officer and signed by Petitioner.
The defense theory was that the entire story was concocted by Janet Ralph,
Petitioner’s step-mother. Janet Ralph testified that when she married Bernie Ralph,
Petitioner was thirteen years old. Shockingly, she admitted that she and Petitioner had a
long-term sexual relationship. This relationship continued until Petitioner was in his
twenties. Janet also testified that Jesse was actually Petitioner’s child. Janet admitted that
after another man, her boyfriend, starting living at the house–along with her
husband–Petitioner became upset.
Petitioner testified that the allegations against him surfaced when he started
refusing to have sex with Janet, argued with her about having her boyfriend live in the
house, and was then kicked out of the house. Petitioner also claimed that the police officer
tricked him into signing the written confession with a promise that he would not get any time
if he did so.
In light of the evidence presented at trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts
of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of attempted second-degree criminal
Following his convictions, Petitioner pursued an appeal of right. On November 17,
2000, the MichiganCourt of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion affirming Petitioner's
conviction. People v. Ralph, No. 214719 (Mich. Ct. App. November 17, 2000). Petitioner
then filed a pro per application for leave to appeal in the MichiganSupreme Court, but on
July 30, 2001, it was denied by standard order. People v. Ralph, No. 118362 (Mich. Sup.
Ct. July 30,2001). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on
November 30, 2001. His conviction became final 90 days later, when the time expired for
him to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Almost eight years later, on October 30, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for an
evidentiary hearing in the state trial court. The trial court treated the filing as a motion for
relief fromjudgment pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.500, and on December 4, 2009, it
denied relief. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of
Appeals, but it was denied on February 5, 2010. People v. Ralph, No. 295632 (Mich. Ct.
App. February 5, 2010). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Supreme Court, but it was denied on July 26, 2010. People v. Ralph, No. 140608
(Mich. Sup. Ct. July 26, 2010). The Michigan Sureme Court denied reconsideration on
October 26, 2010.
On March 11, 2011, Petitioner dated his current petition for habeas relief.
A. Motion for Summary Judgment
The Court will grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment because the
petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F. 3d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 2000)(quoting FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(c)). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must
set forth specific facts sufficient to show that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict
in his favor. Id.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), a one-year
statute of limitations applies to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one year statute of limitation runs
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;
(B) 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
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where it has not been filed
within the one year statute of limitations. See Holloway v. Jones, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1185,
1187 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Petitioner’s direct review was concluded in early 2002, about nine years before he
filed his present habeas petition. Thus, for the petition to be considered timely, Petitioner
is required to either demonstrate a later starting point for the limitations period or to
demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling. Petitioner alleges that the period did not begin
to run until a short time before he filed his motion for relief from judgment in the state trial
court, when he claims he discovered new evidence of his actual innocence. He also claims
that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he is actually innocent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(d)(1)(D), the AEDPA's one year limitations period
begins to run from the date upon which the factual predicate for a claim could have been
discovered through due diligence by the habeas petitioner. See Ali v. Tennessee Board
of Pardon and Paroles, 431 F. 3d 896, 898 (6th Cir. 2005). The date of the actual
discovery of the factual predicate does not matter, it is the date on which it could have
discovered through due diligence that marks the starting point. See Redmond v. Jackson,
295 F. Supp 2d 767, 771 (E.D. Mich. 2003). Moreover, the time under the AEDPA's
limitations period begins to run pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(D) when a habeas petitioner
knows, or through due diligence, could have discovered, the important facts for his or her
claims, not when the petitioner recognizes the facts' legal significance. Id. Finally, "§
2244(d)(1)(D) does not convey a statutory right to an extended delay while a petitioner
gathers every possible scrap of evidence that might support his claim." Redmond, 295 F.
Supp. 2d at 771. "Rather, it is the actual or putative knowledge of the pertinent facts of a
claim that starts the clock running on the date on which the factual predicate of the claim
could have been discovered through due diligence, and the running of the limitations period
does not await the collection of evidence which supports the facts, including supporting
affidavits." Id. at 772. A habeas petitioner has the burden of proof in persuading a federal
court that he or she exercised due diligence in searching for the factual predicate of the
habeas claims. See Stokes v. Leonard, 36 Fed. Appx. 801, 804 (6th Cir. 2002).
In the present case, Petitioner alleges that letters he has received while in prison
from Janet Ralph establish that he is actually innocent. He attached the letters to his
habeas petition. The first purported letter from Janet to Petitioner references Petitioner’s
allegation that Robert Ralph was once caught placing a finger in Rachel’s vagina.
Petitioner alleges that he has first-hand knowledge of this alleged incident, which he says
occurred prior to the date of his alleged offense. Petitioner speculates that when the twins
were given a medical examination prior to his trial, their identities must have been switched
so that it would appear that it was Ruth’s hymen that had been ruptured and not Rachel’s.
He alleges that this was done so that the medical records would line-up with Ruth’s trial
Petitioner notes that subsequent letters from Janet strike a friendlier tone. One letter
refers to Janet sending Petitioner money, and another letter includes pictures of the twins.
Petitioner argues that it is inconceivable that the mother of the victims would send money
and pictures to Petitioner if she really believed him to be guilty of the offenses.
Petitioner further notes what he views as inconsistencies in the trial testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. He states that the victims’ testimony that they sat by their father
following the incident was contradicted by other testimony.
And he points out the
improbability of him having access to a gun because he claims the guns were locked in a
safe and he did not have a key. Finally, Petitioner alleges that Jesse has recanted his trial
testimony, but because of threats made by other family members, he is unable or unwilling
to present any evidence of the recantation.
Petitioner is not entitled to invoke the provisions of § 2244(d)(1)(D) to delay the
commencement of the one year limitations based on these items because he has failed to
offer any argument as to why he could not have discovered the basis for these claims
earlier. He does not allege when the letters were sent to him. And, in any event, he admits
that he knew about the allegations concerning Robert Ralph even before trial. If there is
a claim concerning Robert’s alleged molestation of Rachel, Petitioner has not explained
why he did not raise it earlier.
To the extent Janet Ralph sent money and photographs to Petitioner in prison, the
information does not form the predicate to any constitutional claim. At most, it casts doubt
on her credibility, but her twisted relationship with Petitioner–and therefore the extent to
which it gave her reason to manipulate her children–was well-known and explored at the
time of trial.
Finally, Petitioner does not state when or how he believes Jesse has recanted his
trial testimony, nor does he proffer any details of the alleged recantation. The other
items–his lack of access to a gun and alleged inconsistencies in trial testimony–are not
newly discovered matters. Therefore, § 2244(d)(1)(D) does not save his petition from being
time-barred. See Townsend v. Lafler, 99 Fed. Appx. 606, 608-09 (6th Cir. 2004).
To the extent Petitioner is arguing that his actual innocence excuses him from
complying with the statute of limitations altogether, the AEDPA's statute of limitations "is
subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases." Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560,
177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (2010). The one year statute of limitations may be equitably tolled based
upon a credible showing of actual innocence under the standard enunciated in Schlup v.
Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). See Souter v. Jones, 395 F. 3d 577, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2005).
To establish actual innocence, "a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no
reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 590
(quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327). For an actual innocence exception to be credible, such
a claim requires a habeas petitioner to support his or her allegations of constitutional error
"with new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy
eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence—that was not presented at trial."
Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324; Souter, 395 F. 3d at 590. The Sixth Circuit further noted that
"actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency." Souter, 395 F.
3d at 590 (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998)). Finally, the Sixth
Circuit in Souter recognized the Supreme Court's admonition that the actual innocence
exception should "remain rare" and "only be applied in the 'extraordinary case.'" Id.
(quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 321).
Petitioner’s new evidence falls far short of establishing his actual innocence. While
it is troubling on several levels that Janet Ralph sent money and pictures of the twins to
Petitioner in prison, it is not the sort of information that necessarily casts doubt on his guilt.
Janet admitted at trial that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with Petitioner from
the time he was thirteen years old. She admitted that they began to fight and eventually
kicked Petitioner out of the house after she allowed her boyfriend to move into the house.
Accordingly, the jury was fully appraised of the twisted household in which Petitioner lived,
and it was given facts to support Petitioner’s contention that Janet had manipulated the
charges against him. Nevertheless, the jury obviously chose to discount the defense. New
evidence that Janet continues to communicate with Petitioner could reasonably be similarly
discounted. It is not so exculpatory that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror
would find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Similarly, Petitioner’s speculation that the twins identities were switched so that the
medical records would be consistent with their testimony is unpersuasive.
photographs Petitioner attached to his petition show that the twins are not identical in
appearance. And they were examined by their family doctor. In any event, this speculation
is not based upon new evidence, but on Petitioner’s allegation that one of the twins had
been molested by his half-brother Robert, which he claims he knew about at the time of
trial. Likewise none of the other items–the alleged inconsistencies and the lack of access
to any guns–persuasively demonstrates Petitioner’s actual innocence under the Schlup
standard. Petitioner is therefore not entitled to equitable tolling under Souter.
B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing
Petitioner has filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. He alleges that during his
appeal of right, the state court decided his claims against him without granting him a
hearing. He asserts that a hearing is required to create a record for his claims that: (1) he
was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) to produce the video tape of his
confession to police; and (3) to establish that part of his trial testimony was not transcribed.
None of these items relate to the timeliness of his petition. Therefore, Petitioner’s
motion for evidentiary hearing is denied as moot.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that petitioner failed to file his
habeas petition within the one-year limitations period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)
and the statute of limitations precludes federal review of the petition. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and DISMISSES the petition
for writ of habeas corpus.
Before petitioner may appeal this Court’s dispositive decision, a certificate of
appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); FED. R.APP. P. 22(b). A certificate
of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a federal district court denies
a habeas claim on procedural grounds without addressing the claim’s merits, a certificate
of appealability should issue, and an appeal of the district court’s order may be taken, if the
petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a plain procedural bar is present and the
district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the matter, a reasonable jurist could not
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petition
should be allowed to proceed. In such a case, no appeal is warranted. Id. “The district
court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse
to the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; See
also Strayhorn v. Booker, 718 F. Supp. 2d 846, 875 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
After conducting the required inquiry and for the reasons stated herein, the Court is
satisfied that jurists of reason would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. No
certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability.
The Court likewise denies Petitioner permission to appeal in forma pauperis because
any appeal would be frivolous.
Finally, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2012
S/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 9, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also to
Aaron Ralph at G. Robert Cotton Correctionsl Facility, 3500 N.
Elm Road, Jackson, MI 49201.
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?