Dreyfuse v. Pszczolkowski et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying Petitioner's 29 MOTION for Leave to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; granting Petitioner's 30 LETTER-FORM MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objection to Proposed Findings and Recommendations; directing that objections are due by 2/21/2017. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 2/3/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

EDWARD JESS DREYFUSE,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-06717

KAREN PSZCZOKOWSKI, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER
Pending before the Court are two motions by Petitioner. The first is a Motion for Leave
to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 29). The second has been characterized
by the Court as a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections re: ECF No. 27 Proposed
Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 30). 1 For the following reasons,
the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 29) and GRANTS the
Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 30).
Petitioner requests leave to amend his habeas petition to include an actual innocence claim.
Pet’r’s Mot. for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 29, at 1. The Supreme Court in Schulp v. Delo
recognized a claim for actual innocence as “a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass
to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.” 513 U.S. 298, 315

1

The Court notes that the Letter-Form Motion by Petitioner focuses on the inadequacy of
law library access at the Northern Correctional Facility. ECF No. 30. The Court construes the
motion to request an extension of time to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report due to
inadequate law library access. Otherwise, the time for objections would have passed on January
23, 2017. ECF No. 27.

(1995) (citation omitted). Actual innocence, thus, serves as a mechanism to avoid a procedural
bar to relief and allows the petitioner to pursue his underlying constitutional claims. McQuiggin
v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1931 (2013); United States v. Jones, 758 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 2014).
Claims for actual innocence do not state a ground for federal habeas relief without “an independent
constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.”

Herrera v.

Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). “[T]o the extent Petitioner raises a free-standing claim of
actual innocence, such a claim has not been recognized by the United States Supreme Court outside
of the capital context and thus is subject to dismissal on the merits regardless of exhaustion.”
Smith v. Mirandy, No. 2:14-CV-18928, 2015 WL 1395781, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 2015); see
also Smith v. Ballard, No. 2:09-CV-00242, 2010 WL 3835715, at *27 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 24, 2010)
(“the Supreme Court has emphasized that demonstrating actual innocence … is not itself a
constitutional claim upon which habeas relief may be granted in a non-death penalty case”). “This
rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not
imprisoned in violation of the Constitution—not to correct errors of fact.” Herrera, 506 U.S. at
400.
Here, Petitioner wishes to add his actual innocence claim as a separate ground for federal
habeas relief. See Pet’r’s Mot. for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 29. As the Supreme Court has
noted, actual innocence claims serve only as a gateway to present underlying constitutional claims
rather than as a separate ground for relief. This Court has not been presented with any evidence
to indicate that Petitioner’s constitutional claims are procedurally barred in his federal habeas
petition to require the actual innocence gateway. Thus, the Court finds that amending the current
habeas petition to include a separate claim for actual innocence is unnecessary. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.

-2-

The Court further understands that Petitioner has had difficulty accessing the law library
available to him while incarcerated. This difficulty has prevented Petitioner from timely filing
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations. The Court finds
that this inadequate access serves as good cause for providing Petitioner an extension. Construing
Petitioner’s ECF No. 30 Motion as a request for an extension to file objections, the Court
GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion. Petitioner shall have a further seventeen days (fourteen days to
file objections and three days for mailing and service) from the date of this Order within which to
file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Findings
and Recommendations (ECF No. 27) to which objection is made and the basis of such objection.
The objections are due by Tuesday, February 21, 2017. Failure to file written objections shall
constitute a waiver of de novo review by this Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit
Court of Appeals. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363,
1366 (4th Cir. 1989).

Copies of such objections shall be served on opposing parties, the

Magistrate Judge, and this Court.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

-3-

February 3, 2017