Thorne v. Steele
Filing
8
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE.A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. 2 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/17/18. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY THORNE, SR.,
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:18CV123 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and his motion for leave to commence this action without payment of
the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information
provided with the application, the Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee. Therefore, the Court grants petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus is successive and shall be summarily
dismissed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted
and sentenced in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County on November 19, 2003, on charges of
statutory sodomy.
The Court=s records show that petitioner previously brought a § 2254 petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, and that the action was denied on the merits.
See Thorne v. Purkett, No.
4:05-CV-1172 DDN (E.D.Mo.). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner a
certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Thorne v. Purkett, No. 08-3139 (8th Cir.
2009).
To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his original
petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent that
petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those claims in
this Court.1 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). (emphasis added) Petitioner has not been granted leave
to file a successive habeas petition in this Court. As a result, the petition shall be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
1
Petitioner asserts that the Supreme Court case of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), provides
him with a new avenue for habeas corpus relief. Martinez provides that “[i]nadequate assistance of
counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural
default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” Martinez, 566 U.S. at 9. However, Martinez
only applies to preserve underlying ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. 566 U.S. at 9.
Although petitioner raised an ineffective assistance of trial/plea counsel claim with regard to plea
counsel’s purported failure tell petitioner that his videotaped confession could be used against him
at trial, the District Court did not find that this claim was procedurally defaulted. Instead, the
District Court found that petitioner had failed to satisfy the Strickland test, and based upon the
record before it, the District Court, as well as the Missouri Circuit Court, affirmed by the Missouri
Court of Appeals, concluded that petitioner’s plea counsel’s performance did not fall below the
objective standard of reasonableness and should not be faulted for not pursuing a claim that the
confession was purportedly coerced. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). This
was because petitioner specifically swore to the Missouri Circuit Court during his guilty plea that
his confession was not coerced.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 17th day of April, 2018
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?