Randall v. Clark

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- it is hereby ORDERED that this petition be and is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE as barred by the statute of limitations. THIS COURT EXPRESSLY DECLINES TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY . Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 7/18/2017. (see Order for further details)(dest, ) (copy sent as directed in the Order)

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

Maurice Terrell Randall,
Petitioner,

v.

)
)
)
)

Harold W. Clarke,
Respondent.

)
)

l:17cv604(JCC/MSN)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Maurice Terrell Randall, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), challenging the lawfulness of his
conviction in the Williamsburg/James City County Circuit Court. By Order dated June 6, 2017,

petitioner was advised that his petition was untimely and was directed to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). Petitioner responded to that Order on June 29, 2017. For the following reasons,
petitioner's response fails to comply with the June 6,2017 Order, and this civil action will be
dismissed, with prejudice, as barred by the statute of limitations.
I.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed if filed later than one year after

(1) thejudgment becomes final; (2) any state-created impediment to filing a habeas petition is
removed; (3) the United States Supreme Court newly recognizes the constitutional right asserted;
or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered with due diligence. Id. §
2244(d)(l)(A)-(D). In calculating the one-year period, a court must exclude the time during
which petitioner's state collateral proceedings were pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Notably, a federal habeas petition filed after or during the pendency of a direct appeal will not