Stanley v. Steward et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/2/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MELVIN STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No.
JAMES STEWART,
III,
3:11CV744
et al.
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Melvin
brings
this
Petition").
Stanley,
a
petition
Virginia
pursuant
detainee
to
U.S.C.
§
pro
2254
se,
("§ 2254
Respondent1 moves to dismiss on the ground that the
one-year
statute
petitions
bars the § 2254 Petition.
has not responded.
of
limitations
governing
federal
habeas
11.)
Stanley
(Docket No.
The matter is ripe for disposition.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A.
State Proceedings
The
Circuit
Court")
2000.
28
proceeding
Court
for
the
County
convicted Stanley on one
Commonwealth v.
Dec. 21, 2000).
judgment
against
Stanley,
On May 5,
Stanley
of
count of
No.
Stafford
rape on
CR00000376-00
{''Circuit
December 21,
(Va. Cir.
Ct.
2009, the Circuit Court entered final
finding
him to
be
a
sexually violent
1 Although Stanley names two individuals as Respondents,
James Stewart appears to be the only proper Respondent.
The
Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia filed a
response only on behalf of Stewart.
predator
pursuant
Code Ann.
to
§ 37.2-900,
the
Sexually
et seq.
Violent
Predators
(West 2012).
Act,
Va.
Under the authority
of Sections 37.2-908 and 37.2-909 of the Virginia Code,
on July
21, 2009, the Circuit Court committed Stanley to the custody of
the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health
and
Departmental
Commitment,
Ct.
July
Services
Commonwealth v.
21,
2009).
("DBHDS").
Stanley,
Stanley
No.
filed
Order
for
CL08000506-00
neither
an
Pet.
(Va. Cir.
appeal
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court.
Civil
nor
a
(Am. § 2254
3-5.)
On
July
19,
2010,
the
Court
conducted
an
annual
review
hearing of Stanley's civil commitment pursuant to Section 37.2-
910 of the Virginia Code and ordered Stanley recommitted.2
B.
Federal
On November
this Court.
Habeas Petition
1,
2011,
Stanley filed his
(§ 2254 Pet. 8.)3
§ 2254
Petition in
In his § 2254 Petition, Stanley
contends:
2 Respondent did not provide the recommitment order with his
response;
however,
the Circuit Court scheduled the annual review
hearing for July 19, 2010,
Commonwealth v. Stanley, No.
21,
2009),
and
Stanley
see Order for Civil Commitment,
CL08000506-00 (Va. Cir. Ct. July
does
not
contest
that
the
hearing
occurred that day.
3 The Court deems the § 2254
Stanley
apparently
placed
system.
Houston v.
Lack,
the
Petition filed on the date
petition
487 U.S.
266,
in
276
the
prison
(1988).
mailing
Claim One:
Section
Virginia
37.2-900
et
seq.
Code is an unlawful
attainder
under
Article
of
the
bill of
Section 9
I,
and 3 of the U.S. Constitution;4
Claim Two:
Civil
commitment
violates
the
Fourteenth Amendment5 because it is used
"to
single
ex-sex
out
one
offenders'';
group
(Am.
§
of
citizens
2254
Pet.
7
(capitalization corrected).)
Claim Three:
Civil
commitment
violates
the
Thirteenth Amendment6 because it amounts
to
involuntary
servitude
and
class
discrimination;
Claim Four:
Civil
and
commitment
Thirteenth
Amendment
violates
because
it
the
amounts
to punitive conditions of confinement.
II.
A.
ANALYSIS
Statute Of Limitations
Section
101
Penalty Act
of
the
("AEDPA")
Antiterrorism
amended
28
U.S.C.
and
§
Effective
2244
to
Death
establish
a
one-year period of limitation for the filing of a petition for a
writ
of habeas
corpus
by
a person
in custody pursuant
to the
4 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed."
U.S.
Const. Art.
I § 9, cl. 3.
"No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty,
or
property,
amend.
XIV,
without
due
process
of
law.
.
.
."
U.S.
Const,
§ 1.
6 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment
for
convicted,
shall
Const,
amend.
crime
whereof
the
party
shall
within
the
United
States
exist
XIII,
§ 1.
have
.
.
been duly
.
."U.S.
judgment of a state court.7
Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d;
now reads:
1.
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court.
The limitation period shall run
from the
latest
of-
(A)
the date on which the judgment became
final
by
the
conclusion
of
direct
review or the expiration of the time
for seeking such review;
(B)
the date
filing an
on which the impediment to
application created by State
action
violation
or
in
laws
of
the
of
the
United
Constitution
States
is
removed, if the applicant was prevented
from filing by such State action;
(C)
the
date
on
which
the
constitutional
right asserted was initially recognized
by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme
Court and made retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review;
(D)
2.
or
the date on which the factual predicate
of the claim or claims presented could
have
been
discovered
through
the
exercise of due diligence.
The
time
during
which
a
properly
filed
application for State post-conviction or other
collateral review with respect to the pertinent
judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted
toward
any
period
of
limitation
under
this
subsection.
28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d).
7 See Revels v. Sanders, 519 F.3d 734, 740 (8th Cir. 2008)
(applying the AEDPA's statute of limitations
of the civilly committed).
to the confinement
B.
Commencement Of The Statute Of Limitations Under 28
U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A)
Respondent
the
original
Thursday,
appeal
civil
August
with
the
F.3d 701, 704
begins
tersely
concludes
commitment
20,
2009,
Circuit
(4th Cir. 2002)
running
when
direct
Stanley
order,
when
Court
that
the
which
time
only
became
to
file
Hill
expired.
challenges
v.
final
notice
a
on
of
Braxton,
277
("[T]he one-year limitation period
review
of
the
state
conviction
is
completed or when the time for seeking direct review has expired
. . . ."
5:9(a)
(citing 28
U.S.C.
(West 2009).8
§ 2244(d)(1)(A)));
Va.
Sup.
Ct.
Pursuant to Respondent's reasoning,
R.
the
limitation period began to run the next day, and 802 days of the
limitation
Petition
period
on
elapsed
Tuesday,
before
November
Stanley
1,
filed
2011.
his
See
§
28
2254
U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(2).
In some circumstances,
however, a petitioner challenging a
court's determination that he is a sexually violent predator has
one
year
from
petition.
See
each
subsequent
Ballard
v.
determination
Cuccinelli,
No.
to
file
3:10cv524,
a
§
2254
2011
"No appeal shall be allowed unless, within 30 days after
the entry of final judgment or other appealable order or decree
. . . counsel for the appellant files with the clerk of the
trial court a notice of appeal and at the same time mails or
delivers a copy of such notice to all opposing counsel." Va.
Sup.
Ct.
R.
5:9(a).
WL
1827866,
Bartow,
at *2 n.5
(E.D. Va.
628 F.3d 871,
876
(7th Cir.
to delve into such analysis
is
untimely whether
or his
Circuit
recommitted
judgment
measured
Court
2010)).
as
It is unnecessary
Stanley's
from Stanley's
conducted
Stanley on
became
which
final
the
July
on
time
§ 2244(d)(1)(A); Va.
§ 2254
initial
§
2254
Petition
commitment
nor
the
belated
commencement
until
suggests
of
August
18,
expired.
review
and
recommitment
2010,
See
the
28
date
U.S.C.
Stanley cites no other
§ 2254
Petition.
Thus,
under
the time to file his § 2254 Petition
on August
record
annual
Stanley's
5:9(a).
in his
Petition
Stanley
2010.
appeal
Sup. Ct. R.
expired at the latest
Stanley's
Wednesday
any pertinent circumstance,
his
19,
to
hearing or judgment date
file
here,
2011)9 (citing Martin v.
recommitment.
The
upon
May 12,
the
18,
2011.
Stanley
November
1,
circumstances
limitations
period,
failed to
2011.
that
see
Neither
warrant
28
a
U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D), or equitable tolling.
Accordingly,
will
be
granted.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
The
§
2254
Petition
will
be
(Docket No. 11)
denied
and
the
action will be dismissed.
9 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.
See
Ballard
v.
Cuccinelli,
449
2011).
6
F.
App'x
242,
242
(4th
Cir.
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).
unless a prisoner makes
a
constitutional
requirement
is
whether
(or,
should
have
issues
presented
been
were
(quoting Barefoot v.
evidence
consideration
that
U.S.C.
when
matter,
in
a
to
Slack v.
"reasonable
agree
not
issue
Estelle,
463 U.S.
that
matter.
Stanley
A
the
manner
or
529 U.S.
880,
is
This
jurists
that)
deserve
McDaniel,
this
will
§ 2253(c)(2).
different
^adequate
suggests
in
28
only
resolved
proceed further.'"
or
for
COA
substantial showing of the denial of
right."
satisfied
debate
law
"a
A
petition
that
encouragement
473,
893 n.4
of
484
to
the
to
(2000)
(1983)).
entitled
certificate
could
No
further
appealability
will therefore be denied.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion to Stanley and counsel for Respondent.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
Is/
££
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?