Williams v. Smith

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 1/28/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

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

GARY B.WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV578-HEH

WILLIAM C. SMITH,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Williams's Rule 59(e) Motion)

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on September 11, 2012, the Court
dismissed Williams's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition. See Williams v. Smith, No. 3:11CV578-

HEH, 2012 WL 3985609, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 11,2012). On October 3,2012, the Court

received from Williams a Rule 59 Motion to Alter/Amend the Court's Final September
11, 2012 Judgment ("Rule 59(e) Motion") (ECF No. 35). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). For
the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied.

The Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e): "(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. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Williams

argues that the Court must grant his Rule 59(e) Motion to correct "plain error" and to
prevent "manifest injustice." (Br. Supp. Rule 59(e) Mot. at 2-3.)
For the claims challenging the March 27, 2012 judgment of Circuit Court for the

City of Richmond ("Circuit Court") revoking Williams's probation, Williams argues that
the Court erred in finding his claims unexhausted. Williams argues that the Court erred
by stating that Williams still possessed the ability, until March 27, 2013, to pursue a state

habeas petition challenging his March 27, 2012 probation revocation. Williams alleges
that the state would find his claims challenging the probation revocation barred from

review. Specifically, he contends that he raised claims challenging his revocation

proceedings in his state habeas petition, as purportedly "admitted" by Respondent
(id. at 2), and the Supreme Court of Virginia in its August 11,2011 Order, "dismissed the

revocation issues without review as 'time barred.'" (Id.) Thus, he contends the Supreme
Court of Virginia's August 11, 2011 Order "bars any further judicial review in state
courts." (Id at 3.)

As explained thoroughly in this Court's September 11,2012 Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the state habeas petition and the order Williams references above

predate the March 27, 2012 probation revocation judgment. See Williams, 2012 WL

3985609, at *1, *5. Williams's cause of action for his probation revocation accrued

under Virginia law on March 27, 2012; thus, any purported attempt to raise claims
challenging his probation revocation prior to that date failed to comport with Virginia's
habeas corpus procedural rules. Id. at *5 (citing Bookerv. Dir., Dep 't Corr., No 111363,

2012 WL 2053855, at *1 (Va. June 8, 2012)). For the reasons stated in the September 11,
2

2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Williams has not exhausted his claims
challenging the March 27, 2012 probation revocation.
To the extent Williams intends to challenge the Court's finding that the one-year
statute of limitations bars his claims arising from his December 9, 2005 conviction,

Williams again fails to explain why he waited six years to file his federal habeas petition.
See id. at *3-4.

Williams fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or any

other grounds for granting relief under Rule 59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "'Rule 59(e) motion may not be
used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have

been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.'" (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))).
Accordingly, Williams's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 35) will be denied.

Williams also challenges the Court's denial of a certificate of appealability

("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Local Rule for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit 22(a)(1)(A) contemplates that review of the district court's denial
of a COA should be directed to the Fourth Circuit not the district court. 4th Cir. Loc. R.

22(a)(1)(A) (when "the district court has not granted a [COA]. .. appellant may submit a
request for a [COA] with the Court of Appeals specifying the issues on which the
appellant seeks authorization to appeal and giving a statement of the reasons why a
certificate should be issued").

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/
HENRY E.HUDSON

Date: TW2.fr, 1QI3
Richmond, Virginia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE