Bellamy v. State of South Carolina

Filing 36

ORDER: The Court DENIES Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 25 , construed as a motion to reconsider the Court's order adopting the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No.[35 ]), and ORDERS that this matter is closed, and directs the Clerk not to accept any further filings, other than a notice of appeal, from Petitioner in this matter. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 03/09/2017. (dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

Travis Bellamy,
Petitioner,

v.
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

Civil Action No. 4: 16-3807-RMG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

ORDER

)

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Petitioner's objections were due on February 24, 2017. On February 23,2017,
the Court received at the Florence Courthouse a letter from Petitioner, dated February 17, 2017,
stating, "I am giving you notice of additional objections to the Report and Recommendation in this
case being sent to the Charleston division. Please get those documents and file in this case." (Dkt.
No. 29.) No objections were ever received at the Charleston Courthouse, but on March 2, 2017,
Petitioner mailed his objections directly to the Florence Courthouse (the proper address). (Dkt.
No. 35.) The Court construes Petitioner's untimely objections, mailed after the deadline for
objections and received after the Court has ruled on the Report and Recommendation, as a motion
to consider. The Court denies Petitioner's objections, construed as a motion to reconsider, for the
reasons set forth below. Further, the Court denies a certificate of appealability in this matter.
Petitioner's objections, styled as "Affidavit of Facts Giving Judicial Notes, Filing
Additional Objections To The Report and Recommendation; Motion To Suspend The Rules For
Any Defect In Form and Motion to Motion Therefor," are 3 typed pages and 35 barely legible
handwritten pages of incomprehensible gibberish that mostly concern cases other than the present
habeas petition. The habeas petition in this action was dismissed as untimely filed. (Dkt. No. 32

-1­

at 4.) The only statements possibly germane to that ruling that the Court can decipher from
Petitioner's objections are
(1) a listing of many habeas actions brought by other persons in which habeas relief
was denied, followed by the statement, "These are just a few of the 300+ cases
these judges defrauded also establishing equitable tolling."
(2) "I, we, object to the claim we did not establish equitable tolling. The issues and
case was consistently pursued as is proven by the documents filed in case 4: 16­
cv-2939, 3101-07 since 2005/2006. Case 20 13-CP·400-0084 is not the original
case where collateral estoppel attaches to all parties since the SC Attorney
General is party." Petitioner continues at some length to refer to various cases
in the South Carolina court of common pleas, and concludes that those cases
establish a basis for equitable tolling for some unstated reason.
Regarding the first statement, a listing other persons' denied habeas petitions is not a cognizable
argument for equitable tolling in the present case. Regarding the second statement, the federal
case number he cites is a § 1983 action brought by John E. Sutcliffe, which (improperly) sought
habeas relief and which was dismissed as moot because the plaintiff had died. Petitioner, along
with many other prisoners, was terminated from that suit because prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis must pursue their claims separately. He therefore was broken out into case number 4: 16·

3104-RBS, in which his amended complaint named as defendants, inter alia, all member states of
the United Nations, all U.S. states and territories that allow same-sex marriage, various United
States District Court judges, the South Carolina Supreme Court, and various state prison officials.
The amended complaint is 1,656 handwritten pages long. Petitioner perhaps means that something
within that filing establishes cause for equitable tolling in this case, but if so, he provides no hint

as to what that might be other than to reference the I 56-page "Genetry Fraud Issue" document that
is exhibit I to the amended complaint (see Dkt. No. 35 at 34.)
One of Petitioner's few clear statements, however, is that "the previous filed Writ of
ErrorlHabeas Corpus petition is indeed his initial response to the report and recommendation."
(Dkt. No. 35 at I.) Of course, the document initiating this action cannot be the "initial response"
to a later recommendation to terminate this action. It appears that Petitioner means to say that in
response to the Report and Recommendation he stands on his previous filing. The Court fully
considered those filings when it adopted the Report and Recommendation, so they can provide no
basis for reconsideration.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, construed as a motion to reconsider the Court's order
adopting the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35), and ORDERS that this matter is closed,
and directs the Clerk not to accept any further filings, other than a notice of appeal, from Petitioner
in this matter.
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

-3­

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.

United States District Court Judge

!1-,

2017
March
Charleston, South Carolina

-4­