Johnson v. Mauney

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Respondent's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/13/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Joseph Johnson, #325591,

)

)

Petitioner,

v.
Warden Mauney

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 1:11-1753-RMG

ORDER

)

---------------------------)

In this action, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, this case was automatically referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. On December 1, 2011, Respondent filed a motion
for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 18). On January 6, 2012, Petitioner filed a response in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

(Dkt. No. 27).

On May 18, 2012, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondent's
motion for summary judgment be granted. (Dkt. No. 29). On June 7, 2012, Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 33). As explained herein, the Court
agrees with and wholly adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and grants
Respondent's motion for summary judgment.
LawlAnalysis
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a

de novo detennination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. Where
the petitioner fails to file specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident

Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Camby v. Davis, 718 F .2d 198 (4th
Cir. 1983).
On December 6, 2007, Petitioner pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to ten
years in prison.

(Dkt. No. 19-2 at 3-11 ).1

Petitioner did not appeal from his guilty plea.

Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief ("PCR") asserting ineffective assistance
of counsel.

Petitioner received an evidentiary hearing on his PCR application, which was

subsequently dismissed. (Dkt. No. 19-2 at 51-57). Petitioner did not file a Rule 59(e) motion to
alter or amend the order dismissing his PCR application. Petitioner appealed the denial of his
PCR application and petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. (Dkt.
No. 19-3). On May 26,2011, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the petition. (Dkt. No.
19-5). On July 25, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is now
before the Court. (Dkt. No.1). In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner makes the
following assertions: (1) the sentencing court lacked personal jurisdiction; (2) the sentencing
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the 2007 indictment was a sham; (4) Petitioner's
1 Petitioner's guilty plea was for charges brought in a 2007 indictment. Petitioner had been
indicted on a 2006 indictment as well. On December 6, 2007, the same day Petitioner pled
guilty, the 2006 indictment and the weapons charge on the 2007 indictment were nolle prossed.
(Dkt.No.19-1 at3,4,8).

2

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated; and (5) Petitioner was
subjected to double jeopardy. (Jd. at 5), As explained briefly below (and more thoroughly in the
Report and Recommendation which this Court adopts), Respondent is entitled to summary
judgment on each of Plaintiffs claims.
"[A] state prisoner's federal habeas petition should be dismissed if the prisoner has not
exhausted available state remedies as to any of his federal claims." Coleman v. Thompson, 501
U.S. 722, 731 (1991). When a prisoner" fails to raise certain claims in state court and that court
"would now find the claims procedurally barred," a federal court is barred from considering the
claims.

Id. at 735 n.l.

As the Magistrate Judge thoroughly explained in her Report and

Recommendation, Petitioner is procedurally barred from asserting that the sentencing court
lacked personal jurisdiction,2 that the 2007 indictment was a sham, that his Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to due process were violated, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy,
because Petitioner failed to raise such claims at trial and did not file an appeal. Further, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's discussion of the relevant law and the finding that
Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause and prejudice, or that a failure to consider his claims
will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, to excuse his failure to exhaust his state
remedies. Finally, Petitioner's assertion that the sentencing court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction

a claim which is based entirely on the state court's determination of state laws ­

does not set forth a cognizable federal habeas claim. See Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 158
(4th Cir. 1998) (holding that an alleged defect in the jurisdiction of a sentencing court which is
based solely upon an interpretation of state law does not state a federal claim, absent a showing

2 Additionally, under South Carolina law, personal jurisdiction is waived by appearing and
defending or pleading guilty to a charge. See State v. Douglas, 138 S.E.2d 845, 847 (S.C. 1965).
3

of a complete miscarriage of justice). The circuit court of General Sessions for Anderson County
certainly had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's guilty plea.
Conclusion

After reviewing the record and the relevant case law, this Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge accurately stated and applied the law in her Report and Recommendation.

Further,

Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation merely rehash the arguments made in
his response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment and are without merit. Therefore,
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and grants
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

Respondent's motion for summary judgment.
dismissed with prejudice.

Certificate of Appealability

The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

See Miller-EI v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

June-D 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

5