O'Neill v. Diggs
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 12/23/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHN DANIEL O'NEILL,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:10CV157
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Daniel O'Neill has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton for rapes and
sexual abuse of multiple children. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 9,
2011, the Court dismissed the § 2254 Petition on the grounds that it was barred by the relevant
statute of limitations. O'Neill v. Dir., Va. Dep'tCorr., 3:10CV157, 2011 WL 3489624, at *2
(E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2011). On August 23, 2011, the Court received O'Neill's Motion for
Reconsideration of that decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On
September 2, 2011, the Court received from O'Neill a Motion for a Certificate of Appealability.
Thereafter, the Court received several other motions from O'Neill wherein he amends or expands
his arguments as to why his § 2254 Petition is not barred by the statute of limitations.
"[Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate "(1) to accommodate
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d
1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) {citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406, 1419
(D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. MarathonLeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)).
O'Neill contends that he is entitled to relief upon the third ground. O'Neill, however, fails to
demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that alteration of the judgment is
necessary to prevent manifest injustice.1 For example, contrary to O'Neill's assertion, he has not
demonstrated his actual innocence excuses his failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
Rather, as explained in excruciating detail in the Court's prior decision, the evidence of O'Neill's
guilt remains overwhelming. See O'Neill, 2011 WL 3489624, at *7-12. O'Neill's Motion for
Reconsideration (Docket No. 42) along with his other motions seeking reconsideration (Docket
Nos. 47-50) will be DENIED.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue
unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) {quoting Barefootv. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
1O'Neill largelyreasserts arguments the Court previously rejected. See Pac. Ins. Co.
148F.3dat403.
No law or evidence suggests that O'Neill is entitled to further consideration in this matter.
O'Neill's Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (Docket No. 43) will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
Date: /- ~J-3- //
Richmond, Virginia
James R. Spencer
United States District Judge
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?