Randall v. Clarke

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/15/2015. Memorandum Opinion was mailed to Petitioner and electronically sent to counsel of record. (sbea, )

IN THE

UNITED

FOR THE

STATES

DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

COURT

OCT I 6 2015

OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

tt£RK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
R't^HMOND. VA

MORRIS LEE RANDALL,

JR.,

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No.

HAROLD W.

3:14CV562

CLARKE,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 6,

the Court denied Morris Lee Randall,
of habeas corpus pursuant
statute of

WL 4705506,
the

Court

Judgment

limitations.

at *16

(E.D. Va. Aug.

received

pursuant

from

to

Jr.'s petition for a

to 28 U.S.C.
Randall v.

6,

Randall

Federal

a

Rule

2015,

§ 2254

writ

as barred by the

Clarke,

No.

2015).

On August 20,

2015,

to

Amend

Motion

of

Civil

judgment

after

3:14CV562,

Alter

or

Procedure

2015

59(e).

("Rule 59(e) Motion," ECF No. 29.)^

"[R]econsideration

of

a

its

entry

is

an

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly."

Pac. Ins.

Co.

(4th

V.

1998)

Am.

Nat'l

(internal

Fire

Ins.

quotation

Co.,

marks

148

F.3d

omitted).

396,

The

403

United

Cir.

States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds

for relief under Rule 59(e):

"(1) to accommodate an intervening

^ The Court corrects the capitalization in quotations from
Randall's

submissions.

change

in controlling law;

available

prevent

1076,
Co. ,

at

manifest

1081
771

F.

Randall's

or

Supp.
Co.,

mere

Rule

(3)

to account

to

correct

injustice."

(4th Cir.

LeTourneau

warrant

trial;

(2)

1993)

1406,
130

clear

Hutchinson

v.

error of

Staton,

1419

(D.

F.R.D.

Md.

625,

with

relief,

and

1991);
626

the

he

Atkins v.

(S.D.

Court's

may

not

use

F.2d

Koppers
Marathon

Miss.

ruling

law or

994

(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v.

disagreement

59(e)

a

for new evidence not

1990)).

fails

to

59(e)

to

Rule

rehash arguments previously presented or to submit evidence that
should

have

been

explained below,

previously

submitted.

much of Randall's Rule

Id.
59(e)

at

1082,

As

Motion runs afoul

of this principle.

Randall
relief

59(e)
it

to

argues

"correct

Mot.

1.)

that

the

manifest

First,

errors

should
of

Surles'

3.)

affidavits

failed

to

on

that

hearing

before

demonstrate

that

also submits his

59(e)

fact."

(Rule

the

basis

Floyd Green['s]

that

each

witness

and
had

and therefore not worthy of belief"

"affidavits are of dubious authenticity."

Randall argues

evidentiary

and

Rule

Randall argues that the Court erred when

been convicted of felonies,
and because the

grant

law

"rejected the credence and relevance of

Charles

at

Court

(Id.

the Court erred by not holding an
reaching
he

own affidavit

was

the

actually

swearing

on Green's and S u r l e s ' s a f f i d a v i t s

conclusion

were

that

innocent.

that

he

Randall

the notarizations

authentic.

First,
be

despite

notarized

affidavits
contents

inquiry.
the

this

the

along

reasonable
WL

as

the

that

*12.

the

actual

the

evidence

at

innocence.

put

found

Randall

felony

Randall

Randall

determined

that

Surles

fails

to

that

Chamblis's
Randall

the

phone

contends

Court

records
that

he

in
did

Randall

made

failed

that

not

on

or

on

to
a

the

testimony

that,

when

in conjunction
demonstrate

a

his

clear error of

"Court

phone

{Rule 59(e)

his

failed

relief on this ground.
the

when

a

Randall's

the

to

demonstrate

many

based

authentic

new

Randall,

to

and Green

Chamblis[]'

erred

guilty."

determined

Randall

petitioner's claim of innocence."
claims

not

Court

contends

Jamila

the

innocence

trial,

not

status

of

at

that
was

the

trial,

actual

to
the

considered

contrary

were

law or any other basis for Rule 59(e)
Next,

forth

Thus,

affidavits

affidavits

its

discount

even considering this

innocence

affiants'

not

Court

in

determination

Instead,

considering
the

Court's

the

the

appeared not

"Despite the Court's doubt about

evidence

at

that

incredible.

the

did

evidence

have

his

determination

Court

affidavits,

would

4705506,

demonstrate

actual

with

juror

suggestion,

with

affidavits

these

affidavits

Instead,

The Court explained:

evidence

fact

the

the

basis.

reliability of

2015

that

appropriately,

on

of

noting

it

when

records
Mot.

assumed

possession
obtain

erred

4.)
that

prior

these

it

refute
Randall
he

to

records

had

trial.
until

after trial.
these

(Id.

documents

at 9-10.)

in his personal possession prior to

records clearly existed,
in his defense,

Regardless of whether Randall had
trial,

the

and Randall could have introduced them

but did not.

Randall also claims that the phone records of Ethel Braxton
that

the

Commonwealth

undoubtedly
"[t]hese

fake"

introduced

and

fraudulent

the

into

Court

records."

evidence

should
(Id.

at

not

at

trial

have

10.)

"are

relied

Randall

on
then

rehashes argument from his habeas petition that Chamblis's phone
records

establish

demonstrate

any

an

clear

alibi

error of

defense.

law.

Randall

The

Court

fails

to

concluded

that

"Chamblis's phone records create more confusion than support for
Randall's

alibi

defense."

Randall

fails

to

Court's

conclusion

Randall,

demonstrate

was

any

clearly

2015

WL

4705506,

compelling

erroneous

reason

or

at

*13.

why

results

the

in

a

miscarriage of justice.
Randall also argues that the Court erred "when i t accepted
trial counsel's explanation without a

hearing of why Chamblis[]

was not called to testify although disputed by Randall."

59(e)

Mot.

4.)

The Court relied upon a

explaining that he

jury

in

his

instructed
4705506,

at

*15.

statement from counsel

intended to call Chamblis and even told the

opening

counsel

(Rule

that

not

Randall

she

to

would

call

testify;

Chamblis.

even admitted

however,
Randall,

that he

Randall
2015

told counsel

WL
not

to call Chamblis at a

later hearing.

the pendency of

2254

sworn

his

testimony

contradict

§

from

At no point during

Petition did Randall

Chamblis

counsel's

Id.

to

statement

support

that

put

his

forth any

alibi

Randall,

not

his

or

59(e)

to

counsel,

decided that Chamblis should not testify.

For

the

first

time

in

support

Randall submits an excerpt of a
a

private

investigator

contention

that

on

counsel

of

Rule

statement that Chamblis made to

July

made

16,

the

2006

sole

ECF No.

this

late

was

Randall also submits,

juncture,

on July 28,

he

30-2.)

2007,

not

of

to

call

going

establish that Morris

(Letter,

for
§

Ex.

O,

at 1,

why

he

failed

2254

his

Ex.

that

N,

at

for the first time at

Chamblis

that

to

her

use

as

Ethel

a

witness

was

executed

Braxton's

"because

phone

records

was not at my house on the night of

homicide because he called me from Ethel's phone."
Mot.

support

in which she states that counsel told her that

going

Commonwealth was

an affidavit

to

determination

Chamblis should not testify in his defense.
1-4,

Motion,

ECF No.
to

29-1.)

submit

the
to

the

(Rule 59(e)

Randall offers no explanation

this

evidence

in

support

of

his

affidavit

or

Petition.

Randall

does

not

argue

that

Chamblis's

interview records are "new evidence not available at trial," but
contends

have

that

held

an

these

records

evidentiary

demonstrate

hearing

"to

that

the

Court

'authenticate'

should

specific

evidence"

that

Petition.

Randall

{Rule 59(e)

submitted

Mot.

before

11.)^

dismissing

However,

his

§

2254

no need existed to

"authenticate" the evidence that Randall submitted in support of

his

§

2254

about

however,

The

Court

reliability

the

Petition.

and

credibility

the

Instead,

Court

did

not

expressed

it

had doubts

of

Randall's

evidence;

this

reject

considering this new evidence,

presented at trial,

that

evidence

outright.

along with the evidence

the Court concluded that Randall

failed to

^ Even if Randall had argued that the affidavit of Chamblis
and the interview transcript of Chamblis was

"new evidence not

available

lacks

to Rule
evidence

trial,"

59(e)
that

evidence

though
review,

at

the

Court

finds

Randall

entitlement

relief.
Courts are not required to consider
is inexcusably untimely, but may examine such

in order to determine whether

"the additional evidence,

filed untimely,
indicate[s]
that the decision under
if upheld, would result in a miscarriage of justice."

Bogart v.

Chape 11,

396 F.3d 548,

559

(4th Cir.

2005)

(alteration

in
original)
(internal
quotation marks
omitted)
(citation
omitted).
To the extent Randall provides "new evidence," the
excerpt of the interview of Chamblis by the private investigator
and Chamblis's testimony was clearly available to Randall prior
to his trial, much less the filing of his § 2254 Petition.
Randall

cannot

meet

his

burden

to

demonstrate

that

"this

evidence was newly discovered or unknown to [him]" or that he
"could
not
with
reasonable
diligence
have
discovered
and
produced such evidence" prior to the dismissal of his § 2254
Petition.
Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir.
1989)
(internal quotation marks omitted)
(citations omitted).
Thus,
this
evidence
fails
to meet
the
standard of newly
discovered

reviewing
Court

evidence.

See

Chamblis's

concludes

that

id.

interview
this

at

771-72.

transcript

evidence

fails

to

Moreover,

and

after

affidavit,

alter

this

the

Court's

conclusion that compelling evidence existed of Randall's guilt,
and

Randall

failed

to

demonstrate

his

actual

innocence.

The

"new" evidence Randall submitted in support of his Rule 59(e)
Motion is insufficient to demonstrate that the Court's judgment
results in a miscarriage of justice.

demonstrate that "'it is more likely than not that no reasonable
juror

would

doubt."

have

found

Randall,

(alteration

[Randall]

2015

WL

guilty

4705506,

in original).

As

the

at

beyond

*16

Court

previously

guilt existed.

to

law

that

he

a

failed

clear

to

error

make

a

of

in

the

sufficient

evidence

a

omitted)

explained,

Randall

Court's

showing

innocence to excuse the untimeliness of his §

Moreover,

reasonable

(citation

compelling evidence of Randall's
demonstrate

a

of

2254

fails

conclusion

his

actual

Petition.

review of Randall's motion and the accompanying

demonstrates

that

Randall

is

clearly

attempting

to

rehash the arguments previously considered and rejected by the
Court,

and

to

use

Rule

59(e)

to

address

deficiencies

arguments and theories as

identified by the Court.

may not

purposes

be

used

for

such

or

should have been previously submitted.

to

submit

in

his

Rule 59(e)

evidence

Hutchinson,

994

that

F.2d at

1082 .

Randall

fails

to

demonstrate

a

clear

error of

other basis for granting relief under Rule 59(e).
the

Rule

Requests

59(e)

for

Motion

an

(ECF

Evidentiary

No.

29)

will

Hearing

be

(ECF

law or any
Accordingly,

denied.

Nos.

Randall's

32-33)

will

be

denied.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

proceeding unless a
("COA").

28

U.S.C.

judge issues a
§

§ 2254

certificate of appealability

2253 (c)(1)(A).

A

COA

will

not

issue

unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of
a

constitutional

requirement

is

right."

satisfied

debate

whether

(or,

should

have

issues

presented

been

for

were

to

that

U.S.C.
when

a

satisfy

agree

different

'adequate

Estelle,

§ 2253(c)(2),

"reasonable

matter,

in

Slack v.

(quoting Barefoot v.

fails

only

resolved

proceed further.'"

Randall

28

to

McDaniel,
463

this

the

manner

or

880,

could

petition
that

encouragement

529 U.S.

U.S.

jurists

that)

deserve

This

893

standard.

473,

484

& n.4

the

to

(2000)

(1983)).

Accordingly,

a

certificate of appealability will be denied.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Randall and counsel of record.
It

i s so ORDERED.

/S/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia