Perkins #233916 v. McQuiggin

Filing 11

OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION F L O Y D PERKINS, P e titio n e r, v. G. McQUIGGIN, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________________/ O P I N IO N ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was ref erre d to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), rec o m m en d in g that this Court deny the petition (docket #7). The matter presently is before th e Court on Petitioner's objections to the R&R (docket #8). For the reasons that follow, P e titio n e r's objections are rejected and the R&R is adopted, as clarified by the instant O p in io n . I. T h i s Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which specific objections are m a d e . 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v . Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1088 (6th Cir. 1992) (noting that a district court c o n d u c ts de novo review of magistrate judge's rulings on dispositive motions); Miller v. C u rr ie , 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[A] general objection to a magistrate's report, w h ic h fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an F I L E NO. 2:08-CV-139 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL o b jectio n be filed. The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern th o s e issues that are dispositive and contentious."). The Court may accept, reject or modify a n y or all of the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). II. P e titio n e r was convicted of murder by a Genessee County jury and was sentenced to lif e imprisonment on October 27, 1993. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition b e dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner has filed lengthy o b je c tio n s to the R&R. While he does not dispute that his petition is untimely, he contends th a t he should be entitled to equitable tolling because he has raised a claim of actual in n o c e n ce . P e titio n e r's application is barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in 28 U .S .C . 2244(d)(1), which became effective on April 24, 1996, as part of the Antiterrorism a n d Effective Death Penalty Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-132, 110 STAT. 1214 ("AEDPA"). Section 2 2 4 4 ( d )( 1 ) provides: (1 ) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of h a b e a s corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. T h e limitation period shall run from the latest ofS (A ) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct re v ie w or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B ) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State a c tio n 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 2 b y the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme C o u rt and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D ) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented c o u ld have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 2 8 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The running of the statute of limitations is tolled when "a properly f ile d application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the p e rtin e n t judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2); see also Duncan v. W a lk e r, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S. Ct. 2120 (2001) (limiting the tolling provision to only State, a n d not Federal, processes); Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (defining "properly f i le d " ) . T h e Magistrate Judge concluded that 2244(d)(1)(A) provides the period of limitation in this case and that the other subsections do not apply to the grounds that Petitioner has ra is e d . Under 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from "the date on which th e judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time f o r seeking such review." Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of A p p e a ls and Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied his application o n February 3, 1997. Petitioner did not petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme C o u rt. The one-year limitations period, however, did not begin to run until the ninety-day p e rio d in which Petitioner could have sought review in the United States Supreme Court had e x p ire d . The ninety-day period expired on Monday, May 5, 1997. The statute of limitations b e g a n running that date and expired on May 5, 1998. The petition was not filed until 2008, 3 te n years after the statute of limitations expired. The Magistrate Judge concluded, therefore, th a t , absent equitable tolling, the petition was time-barred. The Magistrate Judge also c o n c lu d e d that equitable tolling was unwarranted on the facts of the case. P e titio n e r objects to the R&R, contending that he is entitled to equitable tolling b e c au s e he has raised a credible claim of actual innocence. He also vaguely suggests that the s ta tu te of limitations should be calculated under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(D), from the date on w h ic h "the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered th r o u g h the exercise of due diligence." To the extent Petitioner suggests that the statute of limitations should be calculated u n d e r 2244(d)(1)(D), he puts forward the affidavits of Ronda Hudson, Demond Louis and L in d a Fleming, all of whom make averments related to the likelihood that the government's k e y eyewitness was the actual murderer. (See Hudson Aff., docket #8 at 10; Louis Aff., d o c k e t #6 at 16; Fleming Aff., docket #6-2 at 12.) Those affidavits are unhelpful to P e titio n e r. First, the affidavit of Ronda Hudson was signed on January 30, 1997, before his c o n v ic tio n became final. Demond Louis' affidavit was signed on March 16, 1999. Linda F lem in g 's affidavit was signed on July 16, 2002. Even assuming that the affidavits contain n e w ly discovered evidence, a dubious conclusion in light of Petitioner's admitted knowledge a b o u t the underlying facts involving these possible witnesses at the time of trial, his petition re m a in s untimely under 2244(d)(1)(D). Assuming that the statute of limitations began to ru n as of the date of the latest of these affidavits, July 16, 2002, absent tolling, Petitioner had 4 u n til July 16, 2003 in which to file his habeas petition. He did not file until June 2008. M o re o v e r, according to the allegations of the amended complaint, Petitioner did not file any p o s t- c o n v i c tio n motion after that date that could have tolled the statute of limitations. As a re su lt, absent equitable tolling, Petitioner's claim is time-barred. A petitioner bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to equitable tolling. See A lle n v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004); Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638, 642 (6th C ir. 2003); Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Circuit has re p e a te d ly cautioned that equitable tolling should be applied "sparingly" by this Court. See J u ra d o , 337 F.3d at 642; Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002); Dunlap, 250 F .3 d at 1008-1009. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418-19 (2005), the Supreme C o u rt held that a petitioner seeking equitable tolling of the habeas statute of limitations has th e burden of establishing two elements: "(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, a n d (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way." Id. at 418 (applying standard s e t forth in Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)). P e titio n e r generally claims that he is actually innocent of the offenses for which he w a s convicted. The Sixth Circuit has held that a habeas petitioner who demonstrates a c r e d ib l e claim of actual innocence based on new evidence may, in exceptional circumstances, b e entitled to equitable tolling of habeas limitations. See McCray v. Vasbinder, 499 F.3d 5 6 8 , 571 (6th Cir. 2007); Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 597-98 (6th Cir. 2005). Petitioner, h o w e v e r , fails to present such exceptional circumstances. 5 T o support a claim of actual innocence, a petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of a ll the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. S o u te r, 395 F.3d at 590, 598-99; Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998); Allen, 3 6 6 F.3d at 405. A valid claim of actual innocence requires a petitioner "to support his alleg atio n s of constitutional error with new reliable evidence whether it be exculpatory s c ie n tif ic evidence, trustworthy eyewitness account, or critical physical evidence that was n o t presented at trial." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995). Furthermore, actual in n o c e n c e means "factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency." Bousley, 523 U.S. at 6 2 3 . A petitioner "must produce evidence of innocence so strong that the court can not have c o n f id e n c e in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free o f nonharmless constitutional error." Allen, 366 F.3d at 405 (internal quotations and citations o m itte d ). Petitioner has made no such showing in this case. His alleged newly discovered e v id e n c e was substantially available to him at trial. While the precise contours of the a f f id a v its may have been new as of 1997, 1999 and 2002, one theory of the defense at trial w a s that Petitioner was being framed by the prosecution's lead witness, who himself was resp o n sible for the murder. M o re o v e r, nothing about the Sixth Circuit's recognition of actual innocence as a basis f o r equitable tolling suggests that such evidence will indefinitely toll the statute of lim ita tio n s . Instead, The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that equitable tolling, 6 re g a rd le ss of its basis, always requires the petitioner to demonstrate that he has acted d ilig e n tly to pursue his rights. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 418. Petitioner has failed utterly to d e m o n s tra te the necessary diligence in exercising his rights. By July 2002, Petitioner had a c q u ire d all of the evidence that he recites to support his actual innocence, yet he waited until J u n e 2008 to bring his claim before any court. Such a delay falls far short of demonstrating the requisite diligence. As a result, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his is the "rare a n d extraordinary case," Souter, 395 F.3d at 590, in which evidence of actual innocence s h o u ld toll the statute of limitations. I I I. H av in g considered each of Petitioner's objections and finding no error, the Court h e re b y denies Petitioner's objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation of the M a g is tra te Judge, as clarified by this Opinion. Under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), the Court also must determine whether a certificate of a p p e ala b ility should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a "s u b sta n tial showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The Sixth C irc u it Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of a p p e a la b ility. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must "e n g a g e in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is w a rra n te d under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 7 4 7 3 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined each of P e titio n e r's claims under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, to warrant a grant of the certificate, "[t]he petitioner m u s t demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the c o n s titu t io n a l claims debatable or wrong." Id. "A petitioner satisfies this standard by d e m o n s tra ti n g that . . . jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve e n c o u r a g e m e n t to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In a p p lyin g this standard, the court may not conduct a full merits review, but must limit its e x a m in a tio n to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of petitioner's claims. Id. This Court denied Petitioner's application on the procedural grounds that it was barred b y the statute of limitations. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, when a habeas petition is denied o n procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue only "when the prisoner s h o w s , at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Both showings m u s t be made to warrant the grant of a certificate. Id. The Court finds that reasonable jurists c o u ld not debate that this Court correctly dismissed each of Petitioner's claims on the p ro c e d u ra l ground that the petition is barred by the statue of limitations. "Where a plain p ro c e d u ra l bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the 8 p e t itio n or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further." Id. Therefore, the Court d e n ie s Petitioner a certificate of appealability. A Judgment consistent with this Opinion shall be entered. Dated: June 18, 2009 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

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?