Johnson v. Dotson
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 1/27/2025. (adun, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
TUREAN T. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:24CV303 (RCY)
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (“§ 2254 Petition,” ECF No. 1) challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court for
the County of Northumberland, Virginia (“Circuit Court”). By Memorandum Order entered on
November 12, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why his action is not barred by
the relevant statute of limitations. ECF No. 17. Petitioner has responded. ECF No. 18. For the
reasons set forth below, the § 2254 Petition will be DENIED as barred by the statute of limitations.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The November 12, 2024 Memorandum Order
The Magistrate Judge stated the following in the November 12, 2024 Memorandum Order:
Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to 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 judgment of a state court. 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 on which the impediment to filing an
application created by State 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;
(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; or
(D)
the date on which the factual predicate of the
claim or claims presented could have been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence.
2.
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). Rule 5(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the
Respondent to state, inter alia, “whether any claim in the petition is barred by the
barred by . . . a statute of limitations.” Rule 5(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
in the U.S. District Courts. In his response to the § 2254 Petition, Respondent failed
to address the fact that it appears that all of the claims in the § 2254 Petition are
barred by the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, the Court can raise the issue sua
sponte, provided it gives Petitioner notice and an opportunity to respond. See Hill
v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of cocaine, after having been convicted of two or more
like offenses, one count of felony eluding police, and two counts of possession of
a controlled substance. (ECF No. 8-7, at 379–80.) Petitioner appealed. (Id. at
380.) On August 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Petitioner’s
petition for appeal. (Id.)
On August 2, 2021, Petitioner filed his state petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Circuit Court. (Id.) On September 7, 2022, the Circuit Court denied
the state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Id. at 415.) Petitioner appealed. On
May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Petitioner’s petition for
appeal. (ECF No. 8-6, at 30.)
On April 11, 2024, Petitioner placed his § 2254 Petition in the prison mail
system for mailing to this Court.1 (ECF No. 1, at 17.) In his § 2254 Petition,
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief upon the following grounds:
1
This is the date that Petitioner swears that he placed federal habeas petition in the prison mailing system.
(ECF No. 1, at 10.) The Court deems the § 2254 Petition filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).
2
Claim One
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. “Trial counsel never
informed Johnson of any plea offer[] by the special
prosecutor. Johnson became aware that a plea was offered
after trial. Johnson was not aware of the terms of the plea
until Johnson filed a habeas corpus in the Circuit Court
where Johnson received a[n] affidavit from special
prosecutor.” (ECF No. 1, at 7.)
Claim Two
“Trial counsel failed to challenge venue during trial.” (Id. at
9.)
Claim Three “Appellate counsel failed to argue on direct appeal
defendant’s motion to set-aside jury’s verdict that the trial
court’s subject matter jurisdiction had not been proved.” (Id.
at 10.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), Petitioner’s convictions became final on
Monday, January 25, 2021, when the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari
with the Supreme Court of the United States expired. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d
701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he one-year limitation period begins running when
direct review of the state conviction is completed or when the time for seeking
direct review has expired . . . .” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A))).2 The limitation
period began to run the next day, and ran for 188 days, until Petitioner filed his state
petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Circuit Court on August 2, 2021. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
The statute of limitations began to run again on May 15, 2022, when the
Supreme Court of Virginia refused Petitioner’s petition for appeal from the Circuit
Court. Id. The limitation period ran for another 331 days before Petitioner filed
his § 2254 Petition. Because the limitation period ran for 519 days, the action is
barred by the statute of limitation period unless Petitioner demonstrates an
entitlement to a belated commencement of limitation period under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(B)–(D) or an equitable exception renders his § 2254 Petition timely.
Neither Petitioner nor the record suggest any circumstance that would render his
§ 2254 Petition timely.3
2
On March 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States extended the time for filing a petition for a writ
of certiorari from 90 days to 150 days in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. See United States v. Spencer, No. 226773, 2022 WL 17660979, at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2022) (citation omitted). “The Supreme Court rescinded this order
on July 19, 2021 . . . .” Id. at *1 n.2.
3
The Court notes that the record does not suggest that Petitioner is entitled to a belated commencement of
the limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) for Claim One, where Petitioner contends that counsel failed to
inform him a plea offer from the special prosecutor. The record, however, indicates that Petitioner was aware of the
facts supporting this claim, or could have discovered the relevant facts prior to the conclusion of his direct appeal.
(ECF No. 8-7, at 407–08 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (“Johnson claims that his trial counsel informed
him ‘two months after trial,” that there “in fact was a plea [offer] somewhere between 10 [years].”).
3
Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof, Petitioner
is DIRECTED to show why the action should not be dismissed as barred by the
relevant statute.
ECF No. 17, at 1–4 (alteration and footnotes in original).
B. Petitioner’s Response and Motion to Amend
Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause the Respondent failed to pursue the issue of the statute
of limitations, it’s therefore waived.” ECF No. 18, at 2. The Supreme Court has stated that it is
“an abuse of discretion to override a State’s deliberate waiver of a limitations defense.” Day v.
McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 202 (2006). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ultimately concluded
that it is perfectly appropriate for a court to sua sponte raise the statute of limitations when the
State fails to raise the defense from either oversight or error. Id. at 202–05. Accordingly, by
Memorandum Order entered on December 20, 2024, the Court directed Respondent “to inform the
Court whether he intentionally failed to raise the statute of limitations or merely overlooked that
defense.” ECF No. 19, at 1. On December 30, 2024, Respondent informed that Court “that the
failure to raise the statute of limitations defense was inadvertent, and not intentional. The
respondent agrees with the Court’s analysis in its November 12, 2024 order.” ECF No. 21, at 1.
II. ANALYSIS
Given the above circumstances, the Court concludes that the § 2254 Petition is barred by
the statute of limitations, for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the November 12,
2024 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the § 2254 Petition is DENIED.
Petitioner has moved to amend his § 2254 Petition to add a fourth claim, “Ineffective
assistance of counsel—Trial counsel failed to appeal the trial court’s interpretation of the ‘safety
valve’ provision.” ECF No. 15, at 1. “Where the statute of limitations bars a [claim or a] cause
of action, amendment may be futile and therefore can be denied.” United States v. Pittman, 209
4
F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Keller v. Prince George’s County, 923 F.2d 30, 33 (4th Cir.
1991); Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir.1988)). Here,
Petitioner’s proposed claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Motion to
Amend (ECF No. 15) will be DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
The § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 15)
will be DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) will be
DENIED AS MOOT. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Final Order shall issue.
/s//
Roderick C. Young
United States District Judge
Date: January 27, 2025
Richmond, Virginia
5
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?