Young #273693 v. Lafler

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 , dismissing petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, and denying a certificate of appealability ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION H E N R Y LEE YOUNG, P e t i t io n e r , v. B L A IN E C. LAFLER, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________/ C A S E NO. 1:09-CV-749 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Henry Lee Young's petition under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 16, 2009, Magistrate Ju d g e Joseph G. Scoville issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that this p e titio n be dismissed because it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations governing h a b e as proceedings. (Dkt. No. 7.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on October 26, 2 0 0 9 . (Dkt. No. 8.) This Court must review de novo those portions of the R&R to which s p e c if ic objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the M a g is tra te Judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 2 (b). P e titio n e r concedes that his petition is "time barred on its face." (Dkt. No. 8, at 1.) N e v e rth e le ss , Petitioner first argues that the Court should consider it because "Petitioner has b e e n incapable of doing, or securing adequate representation through the habeas corpus p ro c e d u re ." (Id. at 2.) Though Petitioner submits that he "may not be entitled to equitable to llin g of the statute of limitations" (id. at 3), equitable tolling appears to be precisely what P e titio n e r is requesting. For equitable tolling to apply, Petitioner must demonstrate "that he h a s been pursuing his rights diligently" and that "extraordinary circumstances stood in his w a y and prevented timely filing." Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336 (2007). However, P e titio n e r's lack of skill and inability to secure assistance in the filing of his petition do not c o n stitu te "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to relieve Petitioner of the one-year filing re q u ire m e n t. See Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002) ("[A]n inmate's lack o f legal training, his poor education, or even his illiteracy does not give a court reason to toll th e statute of limitations."). Petitioner also argues that he should be excused from the one-year limitations period b e c au s e he is actually innocent. As the Magistrate Judge notes, a credible showing of actual in n o c e n ce can, in some circumstances, relieve the application of the limitations period. M c C r a y v. Vasbinder, 499 F.3d 568, 577 (6th Cir. 2007). However, a claim of actual in n o c e n ce must be supported by evidence that is both "new" and "reliable." Schlup v. Delo, 5 1 3 U.S. 298, 324 (1995). In support of his claim that he is actually innocent, Petitioner s u b m its an affidavit from the victim, Ruby Lynn, recanting her testimony that implicated P e titio n e r in her assault. (Dkt. No. 2, Ex. A (affidavit).) However, this evidence is neither c re d ib le nor new. Victim recantations are viewed with great suspicion, especially when the 2 v ic tim has a prolonged and intimate relationship with the defendant, as is the case here. U n ited States v. Willis, 257 F.3d 636, 645 (6th Cir. 2001) ("[A]ffidavits by witnesses rec an tin g their trial testimony are to be looked upon with extreme suspicion."); United States v . Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1264 (6th Cir. 1991) ("Recanting affidavits and witnesses are v iew ed with extreme suspicion."). In addition, the evidence is not new because Petitioner's trial attorney and the prosecutor were informed of Ms. Lynn's recantation prior to P etitio n er's conviction. (Dkt. No. 2, Ex. A (affidavit) ¶ 5.). P u r s u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court must also determine whether to issue a c e rtif ic a te of appealability. To warrant the grant of a certificate of appealability, Petitioner m u s t demonstrate that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the c o n s titu tio n a l claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). T h e Sixth Circuit has disapproved of the issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of a p p e a la b ility. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court m u st "engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate s h o u ld issue. Id. Upon review of each claim, the Court does not believe that a reasonable ju ris t would find the Court's assessment of Petitioner's claims to be debatable or wrong. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 8) are OVERRULED. 3 I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt. No. 7) is APPROVED and, c o m b in e d with the discussion set forth herein, ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED as time-barred. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated: August 10, 2010 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

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?