Winkfield v. Donahue

Filing 19

ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A REPLY ADDRESSING EQUITABLE TOLLING. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 7/21/15. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMUEL WINKFIELD,
Petitioner,
v.
GRADY PERRY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01182-JDB-egb

ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET AND
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A REPLY
ADDRESSING EQUITABLE TOLLING
Before the Court is the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody (“§ 2254 Petition”) (§ 2254 Pet., Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1), filed by
Petitioner, Samuel Winkfield, Tennessee Department of Correction prisoner number 433488, an
inmate at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”) in Whiteville, Tennessee, and the
Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Michael Donahue, the previous
Warden of the HCCF (Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.E. 14; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Resp’t’s Mot.
to Dismiss, D.E. 15). 1 For the reasons stated below, the Court directs Respondent to file a reply
addressing equitable tolling.
I.

BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2014, Winkfield filed his pro se § 2254 Petition, accompanied by a legal

memorandum. (§ 2254 Pet., D.E. 1; Mem. in Supp. of § 2254 Pet., D.E. 1-1.) The § 2254 Petition
1

The Clerk is directed to substitute current HCCF Warden Grady Perry for Michael
Donahue as respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

challenges Winkfield’s convictions for the second degree murder of James Charles Haney and for
tampering with evidence, which were obtained in the Circuit Court for Madison County,
Tennessee. The § 2254 Petition presents the following claims:
1.

“Whether the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeal’s (‘TCCA’) decision
that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the Petitioner’s convictions for
Second Degree Murder and Tampering With Evidence was contrary to the
decision of the United States Supreme Court held in, Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d (1989)?” (§ 2254 Pet. at PageID
7, D.E. 1; see also Mem. in Supp. of § 2254 Pet. at PageID 25–30, D.E.
1-1.);

2.

“Whether the TCCA’s decision that the trial court did not error [sic] in
allowing into evidence Petitioner’s prior testimony from his first trial was
contrary to the decision of the United States Supreme Court held in, Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)?” (§ 2254
Pet. at PageID 9, D.E. 1; see also Mem. in Supp. of § 2254 Pet. at PageID
30–32, D.E. 1-1.);

3.

“Whether the TCCA’s decision that the trial court did not error [sic] by
excluding from evidence Terrence McGee’s MySpace picture and caption,
which showed McGee’s proclamation that he was ‘Armed and Dangerous’,
was contrary to the decision of the United States Supreme Court held in,
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)?”

2

(§ 2254 Pet. at PageID 11, D.E. 1; see also Mem. in Supp. of § 2254 Pet. at
PageID 33–35, D.E. 1-1.);
4.

“Whether the TCCA’s decision that the trial court did not error [sic] in
sentencing the Petitioner to the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-five
(25) as a Range I Standard Offender for his Second Degree Murder
conviction was contrary to the decision of the United States Supreme Court
held in, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed.
2d 403 (2004)?” (§ 2254 Pet. at PageID 13, D.E. 1; see also Mem. in Supp.
of § 2254 Pet. at PageID 35–37, D.E. 1-1); and

5.

“Whether the TCCA’s decision that the Petitioner was not denied of the
right [to] effective assistance of counsel during the subsequent trial
proceedings against him, where upon [sic] affirming [sic] the judgment of
the Post-Conviction Court, was contrary to the decision of the United States
Supreme Court held in, Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. —, 133 S. Ct. 1911, 185
L. Ed. 2d 1044 (2013)[?]” (§ 2254 Pet. at PageID 14, D.E. 1; see also Mem.
in Supp. of § 2254 Pet. at PageID 37–40, D.E. 1-1).

Petitioner paid the habeas filing fee on August 7, 2014. (Filing Fee Paid, D.E. 4.) In an
order issued on October 8, 2014, the Court directed Winkfield to sign his § 2254 Petition. (Order,
D.E. 6.) He filed a signature page on October 28, 2014. (Not. of Filing, D.E. 7.) On November 6,
2014, the Court ordered Respondent to file the state-court record and a response to the § 2254
Petition. (Order, D.E. 8.)

3

On December 9, 2014, Winkfield filed an amendment to his § 2254 Petition that added the
following, additional issue:
6.

“That Petitioner Samuel Winkfield, [sic] Post-Conviction Attorney Samuel
T. Howell, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the
post-conviction

proceeding

when

counsel

intentionally

defaulted

petitioner’s Prosecutorial Misconduct claim, that was alleged therein [sic]
his pro-se petition for post-conviction relief, thereby counsel failure [sic] to
raise the prosecutorial misconduct claim on direct appeal, which
constitute[s] cause to excuse the procedural default claim.” (Am. § 2254
Pet. at PageID 70, D.E. 9-1.)
On January 29, 2015, Respondent moved to dismiss the § 2254 Petition as time barred.
(Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.E. 14; Mem. in Supp. of Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.E. 15.) On the
next day, Respondent filed the state-court record. (Not. of Filing, D.E. 16.) 2 On March 2, 2015,
Petitioner submitted his response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, (Pet’r’s Resp. to Resp’t’s
Mot. to Dismiss, D.E. 18.), in which he argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling because his
prison was in lockdown from July 10, 2014 until July 29, 2014. (Id. at 4.)

2

The state-court record was due on January 29, 2015. (See Mot. for Extension of Time,
D.E. 12; Order, id., D.E. 13.) Respondent failed to seek an additional extension of time to file the
record and provided no explanation for his late filing. The judges in this district have repeatedly
reminded the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office that it is not proper to disregard filing
deadlines. The Court will, in this instance only, accept the late-filed records.
4

II.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTIES
The Court cannot resolve Petitioner’s request for equitable tolling without a response from

the Warden. Therefore, Respondent is ORDERED to file a reply in further support of his Motion to
Dismiss within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order. The reply should address
whether Winkfield’s housing unit was in lockdown during the relevant period and, if it was,
whether Respondent agrees that he is entitled to equitable tolling. The reply should be
accompanied by an affidavit by Warden Perry, or another qualified official at the HCCF,
addressing Petitioner’s allegation that he was unable to access the law library between July 10,
2014 and July 29, 2014.
Petitioner may, if he so chooses, respond to any proof offered by Respondent within
twenty-one days of its service.
After the filing of the reply and any sur-reply by Petitioner, the Court will assess whether
an evidentiary hearing will be required.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of July 2015.

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5