Mayfield v. Director

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/20/2015. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
TROY L. MAYFIELD,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:15CV00020
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Troy L. Mayfield, Pro Se Petitioner.
Troy L. Mayfield, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading
that he styles as “PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
INVOLVING TRIGGERING DATE TO FILE PETITON IN SAID COURT.”
The court liberally construed and filed Mayfield’s motion as a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Because Mayfield’s current

submission does not state any legal claims for relief, however, I find that the
§ 2254 action opened by the court based on this submission must be dismissed
without prejudice, and Mayfield’s motion for extension to file a § 2254 petition
must be denied.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a habeas petition challenging a state court
judgment must normally be filed within one year from the date on which the

petitioner exhausted opportunities for direct appeal, including the option to file a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. 1 For a district
court to have jurisdiction over a motion seeking an extension of the § 2244(d)
filing period, that motion must either be filed concurrently with or after the habeas
petition itself, or the motion itself must be construed as a § 2254 petition. See, e.g.,
Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 441 (E.D. Va. 2006) (regarding
motions seeking an extension of the similar time limit to file habeas claims under
28 U.S.C. § 2255). “‘[W]here a motion, nominally seeking an extension of time,
contains allegations sufficient to support a [habeas] claim . . . a district court is
empowered, and in some instances may be required . . . to treat that motion as a
substantive [petition] for relief.’” Id. (quoting Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78,
83 (2d Cir. 2001)). In this case, Mayfield’s motion seeking an extension does not
allege any cognizable claim for relief under § 2254 and, thus, is not amenable to
being construed as a substantive § 2254 petition.
Accordingly, I will deny the petition and motion by separate final order.2
1

Under § 2244(d)(2), the one-year clock stops, however, during properly filed
state court habeas proceedings.
2

State court records available online indicate that Mayfield was convicted in
2011 in the Southampton County Circuit Court of murder and related charges. He
pursued appeals to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and then to the Supreme Court of
Virginia, which refused his appeal on September 21, 2012. Online records also indicate
that Mayfield then filed an unsuccessful habeas petition in the circuit court in August
2013, and that the Supreme Court of Virginia denied his habeas appeal on November 21,
2014. Based on this record, it appears that Mayfield still may have time in which to file a
-2-

DATED: January 20, 2015
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

§ 2254 petition stating his claims for habeas relief. He is advised, however, that because
Southampton County is located within the geographical jurisdiction of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, he should submit his completed § 2254
petition to that court as soon as possible.
-3-