Joyner v. Edmonds

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/27/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Petitioner) (nbrow)

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

McKINLEY COLUMBUS JOYNER,

~5

~

l _____,,_________JI
I

CLEHK,

Petitioner,

t;.s_ O!STri!CT COU:=!T
RICHMOND. VA

Civil Action No. 3:17CV100

BERNARD W. BOOKER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

McKinley

Columbus

proceeding pro se,
§

2254

("§ 2254

Joyner,

a

Virginia

state

prisoner

brings this petition pursuant to 2 8 U.S. C.
Petition,"

ECF

No.

4)

challenging

his

convictions in the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington,
Virginia ("Circuit Court") .
alia,

on the ground that

governing

federal

habeas

Joyner has responded.

the one-year statute of
the

§

inter

limitations

2254

Petition.

The matter is ripe for disposition.
I.

A.

Respondent moves to dismiss,

petitions bars

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

What Is Joyner Challenging?

At

the

outset,

the

Court

notes

that

Joyner

has

been

convicted of more than one group of sexual crimes involving two
women

stemming

difficult

to

from

events

on

November

4,

2010,

discern exactly which convictions

fNI

~ /~0~;;;~111 ~ ~

.

v.

~

[L

he

making

it

intends

to

challenge here. 1

On the standardized form Joyner was required to

complete in order to pursue his federal habeas, Joyner indicated
that he challenges "CR 11-1277 and CR," with May 29, 2012 as the
date of

sentencing,

a

sentence of

5 7 years,

and that he was

convicted of "forcible sodomy, abduction with intent to defile,
and the use of a
This

corresponds

firearm during a felony."
with

Case

Numbers

(§

CRll-1277,

2254 Pet.

2.)

CRll-1278,

and

CRll-1279 in the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington.
1.
On

Crimes Against A.D. 2

October

17,

2011,

a

grand

jury

charged

Joyner

with

forcible sodomy, use or display of a firearm while committing or
attempting to commit forcible sodomy or abduction, and abduction
with the intent to defile.

Commonwealth v.

Joyner,

No.

CRll-

Joyner was also indicted for crimes occurring on October
10, 2010, against a third woman, K.G.
See Notice and Motion to
Sever at 1, Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-42 (Va. Cir. Ct.
filed Oct. 13, 2011) .
Joyner pled guilty to rape, forcible
sodomy, and use of a firearm on January 24, 2012, and the
abduction with the intent to defile charge was dismissed.
See
http://www.courts.state.va.us/main.htm (select "Case Status and
Information;" select "Circuit Court" from drop-down menu; select
hyperlink for "Case Information;" select "Arlington Circuit
Court" from drop-down menu and follow "Begin" button; type
"Joyner, McKinley," and then follow "Search by Name" button;
then follow hyperlinks for the numbers "CR11000261-00 through
CR11000264-00").
"The Circuit Court's docket is accessible
through the Virginia Judicial System Website.
Federal Courts in
the Eastern District of Virginia regularly take judicial notice
of the information contained on this website."
McClain v.
Clarke, No. 3:13CV324, 2013 WL 6713177, at *l n.6 (E.D. Va. Dec.
18, 2013)
(citations omitted).
Joyner does not appear to
contest these convictions in his § 2254 Petition.
1

The Court identifies the two sets of convictions by victim
when necessary to differentiate between each.
2

2

1277, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 2011); Commonwealth v. Joyner,
No.

CRll-1278,

at 1

(Va.

Cir.

Ct.

Oct.

17,

2011);

Commonwealth

v. Joyner, No. CRll-1279, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 2011).

On

January 19, 2012, a jury found Joyner guilty of forcible sodomy
and use or display of a firearm while committing or attempting
to commit forcible sodomy or abduction.
at 1
(Va.

(Va. Cir. Ct. Jan.
Cir.

Ct.

Jan.

19,

19,

Joyner, No. CRll-1277,

2012); Joyner, No.

2012).

CRll-1278,

at 1

The jury was unable to reach a

verdict on the abduction with intent to defile count,

and the

Court granted the motion for a mistrial on that count.

Joyner,

No.

CRll-1279,

23,

2012,

at 2

(Va.

Cir.

Ct.

Jan.

25,

2012).

On January

the jury fixed Joyner's punishment at three years of

incarceration

for

the

firearm

incarceration

for

the

forcible

No. CRll-1277,

at

1

(Va.

Cir.

conviction
sodomy
Ct.

Jan.

and

six

years

Joyner,

conviction.
23,

of

2012);

Joyner,

No. CRll-1278, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 23, 2012).
On May 29,

2012,

the Circuit Court sentenced Joyner to the

nine-year sentence imposed by the jury.
1277, at 1

(Va.

Cir.

Ct. July 2,

2012); Joyner,

at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012).
these two counts on July 2,

See Joyner,
No.

No.

CRll-

CRll-1278,

The Court entered judgment on

2012,

intent to defile count was dismissed.

and the abduction with the
Joyner, No. CRll-1277, at

2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-1278, at 2 (Va.

3

Cir.

Ct.

July 2,

2012);

Joyner,

No.

CRll-1279,

at 2

(Va.

Cir.

Ct. July 2, 2012).
Joyner appealed these convictions.
Court

of Appeals

On June 17,

of Virginia denied his petition for

(ECF No. 13-1, at 1.)

On March 26,

2014,

On June 13, 2014,

the

appeal.

the Supreme Court of

Virginia refused Joyner's petition for appeal.
at 2.) 3

2013,

(ECF No.

13-2,

the Supreme Court of Virginia denied

Joyner's petition for rehearing.

(ECF No. 13-2, at 1.)

On the third and fourth pages of his standardized form for
his

§

2254 Petition,

Joyner identifies the Court of Appeals of

Virginia case number as

"Record No.

1152-12-4"

and the United

States Supreme Court case number as "Certiorari Number 14-7060."
(Id. at 3-4.)

Record No. 1152-12-4 does not correspond with the

above-described appellate proceedings,

which bear the Court of

Appeals of Virginia Case Record No. 1153-12-4.
1 , at 1 ; ECF No . 13 - 2 , at 1 . )
stems from a

"Record No.

1152-12-4"

separate set of convictions in the Circuit Court

for the County of Arlington,
CRll-259.

Instead,

(See ECF No. 13-

Case Nos.

(ECF No. 13-3, at 1.)

CRll-42,

CRll-258,

and

Certiorari Number 14-7060 does

indeed correspond with a petition for writ of certiorari Joyner
filed

in conjunction with

No. 13-5, at 1.)

the

crimes

against A.D.

(See

ECF

By Order entered January 14, 2015, the Supreme

The Court employs the pagination assigned to the exhibits
to the Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss by the CM/ECF
docketing system.
3

4

Court of the United States denied Joyner's petition for a writ
of certiorari.

(See id.)

2. Crimes Against S.P.

For the second group of convictions in the Circuit Court,
on January 18,
sodomy.

2011,

a grand jury charged Joyner with forcible

Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-42, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct.

Jan. 18, 2011) .

On March 21, 2011, a grand jury charged Joyner

with use or display of a firearm while committing or attempting
to commit forcible sodomy or abduction,
intent to defile.

Commonwealth v.

(Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23,
259, at 1

and abduction with the

Joyner,

No.

CRll-258,

at 1

2011); Commonwealth v. Joyner, No. CRll-

(Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23,

2011) . 4

On January 5, 2012, a

jury found Joyner guilty of all three counts.

Joyner, No. CRll-

42, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 5, 2012); Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 1
(Va.

Cir.

Ct.

Cir.

Ct.

Jan.

Jan.
5,

5,

2012);

2012) .

Joyner,

No.

On January 6,

CRll-259,
2012,

the

at 1

(Va.

jury fixed

Joyner's punishment at five years of incarceration for forcible
sodomy,

twenty years

intent to defile,
display of a

of

incarceration

for

abduction with

the

and three years of incarceration for use or

firearm while committing or attempting to commit

Accompanying the indictments for the Crimes Against S.P.,
the grand jury also charged Joyner with forcible sodomy,
abduction with the intent to defile, and second count of use of
a firearm in the commission of a felony involving yet a fourth
woman, L. K. , that were apparently dismissed.
See Notice and
Motion for Joinder of Offenses at 1, Commonwealth v. Joyner, No.
CRll-42 (Va. Cir. Ct. filed Oct. 18, 2011).
4

5

forcible sodomy or abduction.

Joyner,

No.

CRll-42,

at 1

(Va.

Cir. Ct. Jan. 6, 2012); see Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 1 (Va. Cir.
Ct.

Jan.

12,

2012);

Joyner,

No.

CRll-259,

at 1

(Va.

Cir.

Ct.

Jan. 12, 2012).
On May 29,
the

crimes

2012, the same day as Joyner was sentenced for

against

A. D. ,

crimes against S.P.

Joyner

was

also

2,

2012) ;

No.

CRll-258,

at

2012); Joyner, No.

CRll-259, at 1

The

judgment on

Court

2012.

entered

Joyner,

No.

the

jury for the crimes

See Joyner, No. CRll-42, at 1

Joyner,

for

The Circuit Court sentenced Joyner to the

twenty-eight-year sentence imposed by the
against S.P.

sentenced

CRll-42,

1

(Va.

these

at 2

(Va. Cir. Ct. July

(Va.

Cir.

Ct.

July

Cir. Ct. July 2,
three

(Va.

Cir.

counts
Ct.

2,

2012).

on July 2,

July 2,

2012);

Joyner, No. CRll-258, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012); Joyner,
No. CRll-259, at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 2, 2012).
On June 17,

Joyner appealed these convictions.
Court

of

appeal.

Appeals

of

Virginia

denied

(ECF No. 13-3, at 1.)

Joyner's

On March 26,

t

at

2 •)

On June

13 ,

2O14 ,

the

Supreme

denied Joyner's petition for rehearing.
Because,
convictions

in

the

Joyner

end,

it

challenges

is

of

because

6

the

petition

for

2014,

Court of Virginia refused the petition for appeal.
4

2013,

the Supreme
(ECF No. 13-

Court of Virginia

(ECF No. 13-4, at 1.)
no
his

import
§

2254

which

set

of

Petition is

untimely,

the

Court

simply

assumes

that

Joyner

intends

to

challenge all five of his convictions here.
B.

Habeas Proceedings

Instead,

Initially, Joyner filed no state habeas petition.
on August 11, 2015,

Joyner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

Younce,

Va.

No.

3:15CV468

(E.D.

Memorandum Opinion and Order
Court

dismissed

because

he

Joyner v.

without

had

failed

Younce,

No.

filed

Aug.

11,

entered on March

prejudice
to

Joyner v.

2254 in this Court.

exhaust

3:15CV468,

Joyner's
available

§

2015).

15,

2016,

2254
state

2016 WL 1070821,

By
the

petition
remedies.

at *2

(E.D.

Va. Mar. 15, 2016).
On May 6, 2016, Joyner filed a state habeas petition in the
Supreme Court of Virginia.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

at 1, Joyner v. Younce, No. 160707 (Va. filed May 6, 2016.)
October 18,

2016,

the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed his

state habeas petition as untimely.
On January 25,

On

2017,

(ECF No. 13-6, at 1.)

Joyner submitted his initial pleading

in the present federal habeas proceeding.

That submission was a

rambling letter accompanied by a mishmash of excerpts of forms,
research,

prior opinions,

proceedings. 5

and documents

from

his

state

court

By Memorandum Order entered on February 28, 2017,

Joyner failed to use the standardized form required for
filing a § 2254 petition.
Joyner also failed to indicate when
he deposited his petition in the institution mail room for
5

7

the

Court

directed

Joyner

standardized form for

to

return

the

§

2254 petition within fifteen

days of the date of entry thereof.

The Court warned Joyner that

the

"Court's

relief

shall

filing a

and

complete

consideration of
be

limited

to

Petitioner's

the

grounds

grounds

and

for habeas

supporting

facts

concisely set forth on this standardized form and any attached
pages."

( ECF No .

2,

"Petitioner may not
(Id. at 2.)

The Court also instructed that

at 1- 2 . )

incorporate other documents by reference."

On March 10, 2017, Joyner complied with the Court's

directives and filed his

§

Court.

Petition,

In

his

§

2254

2254 Petition that is now before the
Joyner

seeks

relief

on

the

following ground: 6
Claim One:

"The Constitution require [s] all case files
made available to the public after a final

mailing to this Court or sign his submission with any date that
could possibly correspond with his filing of this action.
Thus,
the Court must use the date it was received in this Court as the
filed date.
Respondent references several other claims that Joyner
"appears to raise" in the "pages attached to the form petition."
(Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 5.)
Joyner filed no additional pages
listing claims with his form petition that he filed on March 10,
2017.
The only document attached was a copy of this Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order from his prior civil action and the
decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia on October 18, 2016.
The Court has no idea to what document Respondent refers.
To
the extent that Respondent is referring to some attachment to
his initial habeas filing, the Court explicitly stated in the
Memorandum Order directing Joyner to file on the standardized
form that it would only consider grounds stated on this
standardized form and any attached pages.
Moreover, because
Joyner's § 2254 Petition is untimely, the Court need not address
the merits of Joyner's claim or claims.
6

8

decision [of] the courts in the U.S.A.
Thus
opportunity is made public 'facts' that were
presented to the jury.
The court files did
not contain copy of warrant for the 4th, 5th
search of
my property.
Therefore my
constitutional
right[s]
were
violated."
7
(§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
For the reasons discussed below,

Joyner's

§

2254 Petition

is untimely and barred from review here.
II.
A.

ANALYSIS

Statute Of Limitations

Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations
bars

Joyner's

claim.

Section

Effective Death Penalty Act

101

("AEDPA")

of

the

Antiterrorism

amended 28 U.S.C.

§

and
2244

to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a
petition for

a

writ of habeas corpus by a

pursuant to the judgment of a
U.S.C.
1.

§

state court.

person in custody
Specifically,

28

2244(d) now reads:
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)

(B)

the date on which the judgment became
final
by the
conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time
for seeking such review;
the date on which the impediment to
filing an application created by State

The Court employs that pagination assigned to Joyner's
submissions by the CM/ECF docketing system.
The Court corrects
the spacing and capitalization in quotations from Joyner's
submissions.
7

9

action in violation of the Constitution
or
laws
of
the
United States
is
removed, if the applicant was prevented
from filing by such State action;
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; or
the date on which the factual predicate
of the claim or claims presented could
have
been
discovered
through
the
exercise of due diligence.

(C)

(D)

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.

2.

u.s.c.

28

B.

§

2244(d).

Commencement Of The Statute Of Limitations Under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)(A)
1.

Crimes Against A.D. Became Final January 12, 2015

Joyner's judgment for the Crimes Against A.D. became final
on Monday,

January

12,

2015,

when

the

Supreme

Court

of

United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari.
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 704

(4th Cir. 2002)

the
See

(" [T]he one-

year limitation period begins running when direct review of the
state

conviction

direct

review

§

is

has

completed

or

when

expired

the
II

time

for

seeking

28

U.S.C.

(citing

2244(d) (1) (A))); see also Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522,

527

(2003)

Supreme

(explaining

Court]

affirms

that
a

"[f]inality

conviction on
10

attaches
the

merits

when

[the

on direct

review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari,

or when

the time for filing a certiorari petition expires").
2.

Crimes
2014

Against

S. P.

Became

Final

September

11,

The Crimes Against S.P. became final on Thursday, September
11, 2014, ninety days after the Supreme Court of Virginia denied
Joyner's

petition

for

rehearing,

when

the

time

expired

for

Joyner to petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court
of the United States for those convictions.

See Clay v. United

States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003).
Joyner would have been required to file a
with claims challenging the Crimes Against S.P.
§

§

2254 Petition
earlier than a

2254 Petition with claims challenging the Crimes Against A.D.

Nevertheless,

the Court simply uses the

later date of January

12, 2015, when the Crimes Against A.D. became final, as the date
on

which both of

Joyner's

convictions

became

final

in

state

court for the purposes of its statute of limitations analysis.
Even with the benefit of the
Joyner's

§

later date of January 12,

2015,

2254 Petition remains untimely, because it was filed

more than one year after finality attached.
C.

No Entitlement To Statutory Tolling

To qualify for statutory tolling,

an action must be a

(1)

properly filed (2) post-conviction or other collateral review of
(3 )

the pertinent

judgment .

28

u.s.c.

§

2244 (d) (2).

Joyner

filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
11

28 U.S.C.

2254

§

Joyner's

first

"application
review"

in this Court on August 11,

federal
for

within

habeas petition fails

State
the

post-conviction

meaning

of

the

or

2015.

However,

to qualify as an
other

AEDPA,

thus,

collateral
he

lacks

entitlement to tolling during the pendency of his first habeas
petition.

Duncan

(quoting 28
Next,
Court

of

u.s.c.

v.

Walker,

533

U.S.

167,

181-82

(2001)

2244 (d) (2)).

§

Joyner's state habeas petition filed in the Supreme
Virginia

on

limitations period.

May

6,

2016,

also

fails

to

toll

the

This is so because the one-year period in

which to file a federal habeas petition had already expired on
January 12, 2016.

See Deville v. Johnson, No. 1:09CV72, 2010 WL

148148, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2010)

(citing Webster v. Moore,

199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Thus,

the limitation period ran from January 12,

expired on January 12, 2016.
§

2015,

and

Joyner failed to file the present

2254 Petition until January 25, 2017, more than one year after

the expiration of the limitations period.
limitations bars the

§

Thus,

the statute of

2254 Petition unless Joyner demonstrates

entitlement to a belated commencement of the limitation period
under

28

generous

U.S.C.

§

2244 (d) (1) (B)- (D)

reading of Joyner's

§

2254

or equitable

tolling.

A

Petition suggests that he

argues that his circumstances require a belated commencement of
the limitations period under 28 U.S.C.

12

§

2244(d) (1) (D).

D.

No Entitlement To A Belated Commencement

In

support

of

his

states the following:
attorney

therefore

available

to me

I

belated

commencement

argument,

"I am doing this pro se,
have

worked on

this

in the prison system.

given

I

Joyner

am not a [n]

the

resources

Limited access

to law

library and mail restrictions required more time to discover the
factual

predicate

of

said

claims

thr[ough]

due

diligence."

(§ 2254 Pet. 13.)
Whether a petitioner has exercised due diligence to warrant
a belated commencement of the limitation period pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§

2244(d) (1) (D)

case.

See Wims v. United States,

2000) .

is a fact-specific inquiry unique to each

Cir.

prisoner

2006).
make

Due

818

reasonable

(8th Cir.

F.3d 708, 712
alleges

DiCenzi v.
diligence

supporting his claims."
814,

[he

least

require[s]

to

diligence.

begins

In

re

Moreover,
to

run

discover

(quoting Aron v.

she]

did

Boshears,
under

when

F.3d 465,

471

that

the

a

facts

Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d

2008)

or

452

"at

effort·s

(11th Cir. 2002)).

that

Rose,

§

the

110

not

actually

291

F.3d

petitioner

know

the

facts

thereby demonstrate due
1538,

2244 (d) (1) (D),

13

United States,

A habeas applicant who "merely

underlying his or her claim does not"

1997) .

(2d Cir.

A petitioner bears the burden to prove that he or she

exercised due diligence.
(6th

225 F.3d 186, 190-91

1540

(11th

Cir.

the limitation period

knows,

or

through

due

diligence

could have

potential

claim,

significance.

discovered,

not

when

the

factual

he

See Schlueter v.

predicate

recognizes

Varner,

384

for

their

F. 3d 69,

a

legal
74

(3rd

Cir. 2004); Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here,

Joyner states nothing more

for § 2244 (d) (1) (D).
unaware

of

Joyner's

the

vague

than the

In the absence of a

factual
statement

predicate
that

for

the

legal

standard

showing that he was
a

particular

limited

prison

resources

"require[d] more time to discover the factual predicate"
Pet.

13.),

fails

limitations.
Cir.

1998)

right

to

to

provide

See Flanagan v.

any

Johnson,

("Section 2244 (d) (1) (D)
an

refuge

extended delay

from

the

does not convey a
a

(§ 2254

statute

154 F. 3d 196,

while

claim,

habeas

199

of
(5th

statutory
petitioner

gathers every possible scrap of evidence that might, by negative
implication,

support

his

claim.")

Joyner

also

provides

no

argument that he was reasonably diligent to discover the facts
underlying

his

claim.

Accordingly,

Joyner

cannot

rely

on

§ 2244(d) (1) (D) to render his§ 2254 Petition timely filed.
Joyner has failed to demonstrate any basis for excusing his
failure to comply with the statute of limitations. 8

Neither Joyner nor the record suggest a basis for a
belated commencement of the limitation period under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d) (B)-(C) or for equitable tolling.
8

14

III.

Accordingly,

Respondent's

will be granted.

The

2254

§

CONCLUSION

Motion

to Dismiss

(ECF No.

11)

Petition will be denied and the

action will be dismissed.

An appeal may not be taken from the

final

proceeding

order

in a

§

2254

unless

a

judge

certificate of appealability ("COA''). 28 U.S.C.
A COA will
showing of
§

not

issue

unless

the denial of a

2253 (c) (2).

This

a

satisfied

"reasonable jurists could debate whether

(or,

agree

been

that)

the

petition

"a

constitutional right."
is

should

have

a

2253 (c) (1) (A).

§

prisoner makes

requirement

issues

substantial
28

u.s.c.

only

when

for that matter,
resolved

in

a

different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.'"
529 U.S. 473,
880, 893 & n.4

484

(2000)

(1983)).

Slack v. McDaniel,

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
No law or evidence suggests that Joyner

is entitled to further consideration in this matter.

A COA will

therefore be denied.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion to Joyner and counsel of record.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/

/Z[tJ?

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: <t}t,,f"~ d. 71 )Pl

7
15