Munoz Rueda v. Clarke

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 8 MOTION to Dismiss habeas petition by Harold W. Clarke. (See Memorandum Opinion For Details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/17/15. (nhall)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Trudy Eiiana Munoz Rueda,
Petitioner,

)
)

V.

)
)

Harold Clarke,
Respondent.

)
)

l:14cv699(LMB/IDD)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Trudy Eiiana Munoz Rueda, a Virginia inmate proceeding through counsel, has filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpuspursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the
constitutionality of her conviction by a jury in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County of felony
child neglect and willful or negligent cruelty to a child. On August 18, 2014, respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Rule 5 Answer, along with a supporting brief Petitioner has filed a
response to the Motion to Dismiss, to which respondent has replied. Accordingly, this matter is

now ripe for disposition.' For the reasons that follow, respondent's Motion to Dismisswill be
granted, and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice.
I. Background

On July 20, 2009, petitioner was indicted in Fairfax County for child abuse or neglect, in

'Petitioner's argumentthat she is entitledto an evidentiary hearingin this matter,^ Pet. at 20 24, is not well taken. In Cullen v. Pinholster. U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 1388,1400 (April 4,2011),

which superceded thelawupon which petitioner relies, theSupreme Court held that"[i]fa claim has
been adjudicated on the merits in a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the
limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court." Thus, "[i]n such a
circumstance, any evidentiary hearing in federal court is unwarranted, as new evidence adduced
during such a hearing could not be considered in making the determination under § 2254(d)(1)."
Williams v. Stanlev. 581 F. App'x 295,296 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014).

that argument, as follows:
... Munoz-Rueda argues that her counsel failed to review the medical
records which would have revealed,one, that [N.W.] had an infection;
two, [N.W.] was likely dehydrated and had pre-existing head trauma;
three, that [N.W.] had a family history that was unexplored; four, that
Inova Fairfax Hospital arrived at a diagnosis of Shaken Baby
Syndrome almost instantaneously; and five, that Inova medical

professionals conducted no reasonable diagnosis of possible
alternative causes for his symptoms.
There was no evidence presented that counsel did not review the
medical records. In fact it's clear to the Court on the direct and crossexamination of the witnesses that counsel had reviewed the records

and were familiar with them. Although one of the attorneys may be
more experienced in dealing with the medical records and was given
the responsibility of developing medical issues at trial it does not
amoimt to ineffective assistance of counsel.

As anticipated and appropriate they also relied on the expertise of
their expert who testified that they had reviewed medical records.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that [N.W.] suffered from
any infection prior to this accident. The fact that [the] child was fussy
does not in and of itself indicate there was a pre-existing infection.
There was no reference to any fever or cough or admission in the
records and there was testimony that the fever that occurred later was
most likely the result of the intubation and ventilation.

None ofMunoz-Rueda's experts even noted fever for being a factor in
their opinions. Moreover, although it may have been Dr. Barnes'
explanation for the venous cortical thrombosis there is no evidence
that would have accounted for the other findings related to the injuries
- the left paracortical contusion and injury to the corpus callosum. In
fact Munoz-Rueda[] has presented conflicting testimony through her
experts as to the significance of the thrombosis cortical vein. There
was also no evidence that cross examination on the referenced family

history would have made a difference in the diagnosisand thejury has
been given the opinion that some of the bleeding could be associated
and related to the trauma of childbirth.

The medical records and the attached affidavit from counsel also do

not support Munoz-Rueda's conclusion that there was a rush to
judgment thatthe injuries were Shaken Baby Syndrome, or thatthere
was no reasonabledifferentialdiagnosisofpossiblealternative causes
18