Cook v. Fisher

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 11/21/22. (c/m Ashley Mai Cook 445904 TENNESSEE PRISON FOR WOMEN Unit 2 South C-12 3881 STEWARTS LANE NASHVILLE, TN 37218-3302 ) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
ASHLEY MAI COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
GLORIA FISHER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:21-CV-025-DCLC-SKL

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging her two 2008 Bedford County, Tennessee criminal convictions for conspiracy to
commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder by asserting that (1) she has newly discovered
evidence of her innocence and (2) the state court erred in not holding a hearing on her newly
discovered evidence in the proceeding in which she sought writ of error coram nobis relief based
on that evidence [Doc. 1],1 that is now before the Court. Respondent filed a response in opposition
to the petition asserting that the claims therein are untimely and not cognizable in this action [Doc.

1

Petitioner also cites Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) in ground two of her
petition for relief under § 2254 [Doc. 1 p. 9]. However, Petitioner does not assert, much less
establish, that (1) the prosecution possessed and withheld any of the documents she asserts are
newly discovered evidence on which she relies on for her § 2254 claims, or (2) she could not have
obtained these documents from another source, as required to demonstrate a Brady
violation. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999) (providing that a Brady violation has
three requirements: “The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is
exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State,
either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued); see also Abdur’Rahman v.
Colson, 649 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 30 (2012) (providing that
no Brady violation exists if a defendant knew or had reason to know “‘the essential facts permitting
him to take advantage of any exculpatory information,’” or where the evidence was available to
him from another source (quoting United States v. Clark, 928 F.2d 733, 738 (6th Cir.1991)). Thus,
Petitioner has failed to set forth a cognizable Brady claim.

Case 4:21-cv-00025-DCLC-SKL Document 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2678

9] and filed the state court record [Doc. 8]. Petitioner filed a reply [Doc. 10]. For the reasons set
forth below, this action will be DISMISSED because the claims in the petition are not cognizable
in this action, and the Court will not reach the issue of whether the claims are timely.
I.

ACTUAL INNOCENCE
In her first ground for relief under § 2254, Petitioner asserts that she has new evidence of

her actual innocence for her underlying convictions [Doc. 1 p. 6–7]. Actual innocence, if proved,
serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may obtain review of her otherwise barred or
untimely claims of constitutional violation. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386
(2013); see also Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006). But a
stand-alone claim for actual innocence is not cognizable in this action. Herrera v. Collins,
506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993) (holding that “[c]laims of actual innocence based on newly discovered
evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent
constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding”).
It is apparent that, in ground one of her petition, Petitioner seeks relief for a stand-alone
actual innocence [Doc. 1 p. 6–7]. However, that claim is not cognizable herein, and therefore it
will be DISMISSED.
II.

DUE PROCESS IN ERROR CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING
In ground two of her petition, Petitioner asserts that the state court erred in not holding a

hearing in the proceeding in which she sought writ of error coram nobis relief based upon her
newly discovered evidence [Id. at 8–9]. However, it is well-established that petition for a writ of
habeas corpus “is not the proper means by which prisoners should challenge errors or deficiencies
in state post-conviction proceedings . . . because the claims address collateral matters and not the
underlying state conviction giving rise to the prisoner’s incarceration.” Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d

2
Case 4:21-cv-00025-DCLC-SKL Document 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2679

245, 247 (6th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals “‘has consistently held
that errors in post-conviction proceedings are outside the scope of federal habeas corpus review.’”
Mendenhall v. Parris, No. 16-6003, 2017 WL 2819225, at *4 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) (quoting
Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 853 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also Gardner v. Qualls, 2017 WL
1364675 (noting that as “a state is not constitutionally required to provide” a convicted prisoner
with procedures to collaterally attack her conviction, “alleged errors in states collateral relief
proceedings do not present a basis” for § 2254 relief”) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S.
551 (1987) (other citations omitted).
Thus, this claim also is not cognizable in this action.
III.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will dismiss the petition for § 2254 relief in this

action because the claims therein are not cognizable in this action. The Court therefore now must
consider whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA), should Petitioner file a notice of
appeal. A petitioner may appeal a final order in a § 2254 case only if he is issued a COA, and a
COA should issue only where the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Where the district court rejects the § 2254 petition
on a procedural basis, a COA shall issue only where reasonable jurists would debate the correctness
of the Court’s ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Porterfield v. Bell, 258 F.3d
484, 485–86 (6th Cir. 2001). As reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s ruling that the
claims in the § 2254 petition are not cognizable in this action, a COA will not issue.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1. This action will be DISMISSED;

3
Case 4:21-cv-00025-DCLC-SKL Document 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2680

2. A COA will not issue; and
3. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
s/Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge

4
Case 4:21-cv-00025-DCLC-SKL Document 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2681