Price v. Warden McCormick Correctional Institution
ORDER Adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/31/14. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Warden McCormick Correctional
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that Respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted.
(Dkt. No. 21). As set forth below, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as the order
of the Court.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No.1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, this matter was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial handling. Respondent then filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Dkt. No. 12).
Petitioner then filed a response in
opposition to the motion, (Dkt. No. 15), and Respondent filed a reply, (Dkt. No. 17). The
Magistrate Judge then issued the present R&R. (Dkt. No. 21). Petitioner then filed objections to
the R&R. (Dkt. No. 23).
After careful review of the record, the R&R, and Petitioner's objections, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore
agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. As found by the Magistrate
Judge, this Petition is properly dismissed pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act's ("AEDPA") one-year statute oflimitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
Petitioner's objections are unavailing. First, Petitioner asserts that he is actually innocent
and was wrongfully convicted. However, Petitioner provides no factual basis or evidence for
this argument, only a conclusory statement.
This is plainly insufficient to establish actual
innocence. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995) ("To be credible, such a claim requires
petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence-whether
it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical
evidence-that was not presented at triaL).
Petitioner next objects to the rejection of his subject matter jurisdiction argument because
he asserts a trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. The
Magistrate Judge properly rejected this argument.
While a federal court is obligated to raise questions concerning its own subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte in all cases, this principle does not extend to sua
sponte examination of a state court's subject matter jurisdiction by a federal court.
Whether a state court has subject matter jurisdiction over an offense is a question
of state law. Thus, this court does not review determinations of state law made by
South Carolina courts. [Petitioner] argues the state court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid the time limitations of the AEDP A. However,
since there is no exception under the AEDPA for subject matter jurisdiction
claims, and petitioner does not assert any facts that would allow his claim to go
forward under the limited exceptions to the AEDPA, the court finds that
[Petitioner's] habeas petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
Griffin v. Padula, 518 F. Supp. 2d 671, 677 (D.S.C. 2007) (internal citations and quotations
Next, Petitioner asserts that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his claim is
barred by AEDPA's statute of limitations conflicts with the Supreme Court's holding in
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). This is not correct. "In Martinez, the Supreme Court
held that a habeas corpus petitioner asserting claims for ineffective assistance of counsel can
demonstrate sufficient cause to excuse a procedural default upon a showing that counsel in the
initial-review collateral proceeding was ineffective in failing to raise a claim that should have
been raised below." Jones v. Cartledge, No. 1:13-cv-720-DCN, 2013 WL 6780568, at *7
(D.S.C. Dec. 19, 2013) (emphasis added). Here, the issue is not procedural default, but the
timely filing of the petition under AEDPA's statute of limitations.
"Martinez has no
applicability to cases barred by [AEDPA's statute of limitations]." Couch v. Woodson, No.
2:13cv146, 2013 WL 5933543, at *2 (RD. Va. Nov. 5,2013) (citing Saunders v. Lamas, No. 12
1123, 2013 WL 943351, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2013); Wieland v. Thompson, No. 3:10-cv
00059-MA, 2012 WL 5036820, at *7 (D. Or. Oct. 17,2012); Yow v. Thaler, No. 3:1O-CV-0005
K, 2012 WL 2795850, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 20,2012».
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as the
order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 21). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion for
summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 12).
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 ofa 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.
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
January 3; ,2014
Charleston, South Carolina
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?