Jones v. Buffaloe

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER: The #3 Petitioner's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as untimely filed. Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/21/2022. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00553-MR
RODNEY EUGENE JONES,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, Jr., Secretary )
of Department of Public Safety,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on review of the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on October 13, 2022 by the Petitioner, Rodney
Eugene Jones, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. 1]. Also before the
Court is the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed on
October 27, 2022. [Doc. 3].
I.

BACKGROUND
Rodney Eugene Jones (the “Petitioner”) is a prisoner of the State of

North Carolina. The Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 151 to 191
months of incarceration following a March 13, 2012 conviction as a habitual
felon in Mecklenburg County Superior Court for first-degree burglary and

Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 9

larceny after a breaking and entering.1 [Doc. 1 at 1]. The Petitioner filed a
direct appeal challenging his out-of-court identification by the victim as
improperly suggestive. State v. Jones, 2013 WL 5231986 (N.C. Ct. App.
Sept. 17, 2013). In its order issued September 17, 2013, the appellate court
found no error by the trial court’s admission of the identification. Id.
On January 27, 2017, the Petitioner filed a motion in the Mecklenburg
County Superior Court requesting post-conviction DNA testing on a “gray
jacket” purportedly worn by the Petitioner during the offense. In his motion,
the Petitioner argued that the jacket, which had been processed and
disposed of almost ten years earlier by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department, had been prematurely destroyed. [Doc. 1 at 4-5]. State v.
Jones, 2019 WL 1998707 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2019). The court denied
the motion on May 17, 2017, concluding that the Petitioner failed to
demonstrate materiality for DNA testing and could show no due process
violation. Id. The Petitioner then sought appellate review, which was denied
on May 7, 2019. Id.
The Petitioner filed the pending § 2254 petition for writ of habeas
corpus on October 13, 2022. [Doc. 1]. The petition raises the following

The Petitioner previously filed a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court in
connection with a prior conviction from 2011 in Burke County, North Carolina. See Jones
v. Parsons, 1:12-cv-00175 (W.D.N.C.).
1

2
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 9

grounds for relief: (1) the prosecution destroyed exculpatory evidence (i.e.,
the gray jacket) without conducting forensics testing and without a court
order to destroy the evidence; (2) the prosecution presented unauthorized
evidence (i.e., the gray jacket) that was not timely turned in to the police
department; (3) defect in chain of custody of evidence by the prosecution;
and (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to withholding discovery
files and plea offer. [Doc. 1 at 5-12]. The Petitioner seeks to have his
sentence vacated and requests release from imprisonment. [Id. at 18].
II.

DISCUSSION
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

A.

Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a
petition be accompanied by the applicable filing fee or motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Federal courts may excuse the required fees if
the if the litigant demonstrates he cannot afford to pay. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1).
The Petitioner moves this Court for an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [Doc. 3].

The Petitioner's application shows that he has no

income, no monthly expenses, and no assets, cash, or money in any
accounts. [Id.]. The Court is satisfied that the Petitioner does not have

3
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 9

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and will grant the Petitioner's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
B.

Initial Review of § 2254 Petition

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
provides a statute of limitations for § 2254 petitions by a person in custody
pursuant to a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The petition
must be filed within one year of 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 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.
Id. The one-year limitation period for seeking § 2254 review may be
tolled during the time of a “properly filed application for State post-conviction
action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
4
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 9

The Petitioner’s judgment and conviction was entered on March 13,
2012, and the Petitioner’s direct appeal concluded on September 17, 2013.
[Doc. 1 at 1]. State v. Jones, 2013 WL 5231986 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17,
2013). Because the Petitioner did not file a petition for discretionary review,
the Petitioner’s judgment became final on or about October 22, 2013, 35
days after issuance of the opinion from the North Carolina Court of Appeals
and when the time for seeking further review expired. See N.C. R. App.
14(a) and 15(b)(providing fifteen days after the court of appeals issues its
mandate to file a notice of appeal and/or petition for discretionary review with
North Carolina Supreme Court); N.C. R. App. 32(b)(unless otherwise
ordered by the court, the mandate issues 20 days after decision is filed);
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 656 (2012)(“...with respect to a state
prisoner who does not seek review in a State’s highest court, the judgment
becomes ‘final’ under § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the time for seeking such review
expires”). The statute of limitations contained in the AEDPA then began
running for 365 days until it expired on or about October 22, 2014. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The Petitioner’s post-conviction motion requesting DNA testing on the
gray jacket was not filed until January 17, 2017, several years after the
expiration of the statute of limitations under the AEDPA. The post-conviction
5
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 9

filing would not have tolled the statute of limitations for the filing of a § 2254
petition. See Minter v. Beck, 230 F.3d 663, 665 (4th Cir. 2000)(recognizing
that state applications for collateral review cannot revive an already expired
federal limitations period). In any event, the period of time from the issuance
of the mandate of the North Carolina Court of Appeals regarding the
Petitioner’s MAR and his filing of this action was more than three years.
Therefore, the Petitioner’s § 2254 petition filed on October 13, 2022, is well
beyond the statute of limitations and subject to dismissal unless the
Petitioner can show that he is entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(1)
or that equitable tolling otherwise applies.
The Petitioner does not dispute that his § 2254 petition is untimely filed.
In addressing the timeliness of the petition, the Petitioner claims that all
grounds raised in the petition are based upon newly discovered evidence
that show discovery violations by the prosecution and that he “did not have
knowledge of this until recently.” [Doc. 1 at 17].2

The § 2254 petition is filed approximately eight years after the statute of limitations ran.
The Petitioner has directly addressed the issue of timeliness in his petition. Unlike the
narrow circumstances found by the Fourth Circuit in Bilal v. North Carolina, 287 Fed.
App’x 241, 249 (4th Cir. 2008) which required granting the petitioner the opportunity to
address untimeliness before his habeas petition was dismissed, here the Court need not
give the Petitioner an additional opportunity to address timeliness because it is clear that
the Petitioner understands the issue and has addressed it.
2

6
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 9

A claim of newly discovered evidence must be filed within one year
from “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)(D). “[B]y its terms, § 2244(d)(1)(D) is triggered not when
a petitioner actually learns of some pertinent information from newlydiscovered

evidence;

rather,

it

commences

when

he

‘could

have...discovered’ it.” Sawyer v. Kiser, 2017 WL 631574, *4 (E.D. Va. Feb.
15, 2017)(emphasis original).
In addition to tolling of the statute of limitations under §2244, equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations may apply where the petitioner
demonstrates “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that
some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way” to prevent timely filing.
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130
(2010). Equitable tolling is appropriate in those “rare instances where—due
to circumstances external to the party's own conduct—it would be
unconscionable to enforce the limitation period against the party and gross
injustice would result.”

Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 246 (4th Cir.

2003)(quoting Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000)).
The Petitioner’s allegations of newly discovery evidence are
conclusory and he does not cite to any evidence that could not have been
7
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 9

timely and previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence. The
Petitioner claims that the documents enclosed with his § 2254 petition
constitute new evidence showing the prosecution committed discovery
violations. However, the documents attached to the petition are all copies of
documents relating to his previous criminal proceedings in state court. [Doc.
1-1 at 1-8]. None of the documents demonstrate that the Petitioner recently
obtained any newly discovered evidence that shows the prosecution
committed discovery violations.
The issue pertaining to the destruction of the gray jacket was
previously raised in the Petitioner’s post-conviction motions in state court.
The Petitioner cites to nothing new that could not have been obtained
previously and through the exercise of due diligence. Without more, his
blanket assertion that he “did not have knowledge of this until recently” does
not support his claim for newly discovered evidence. Because the Petitioner
fails to demonstrate the existence of any newly discovered evidence to justify
statutory or equitable tolling the statute of limitations, the petition shall be
dismissed as time-barred.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (in order to satisfy
8
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 8 of 9

§ 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (when relief is denied
on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim
of the denial of a constitutional right).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 3]
is GRANTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED as
untimely filed.
3. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 21, 2022

9
Case 3:22-cv-00553-MR Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 9 of 9