Bradley v. Laclair

Decision Date25 February 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-CV-6445L.,07-CV-6445L.
Citation599 F.Supp.2d 395
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of New York
PartiesMichael M. BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. Darwin LaCLAIR, Respondent.

Michael M. Bradley, Comstock, NY, pro se.

Jessica Birkahn Housel, Wendy Evans Lehmann, Rochester, NY, for Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.

Michael M. Bradley ("Bradley"), who was convicted of the murder of James Domm in Monroe County Court in January 2000 has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging that conviction. I referred the petition to United States Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In addition to the original petition, Bradley has filed a motion to stay proceedings on the petition and has moved to amend the petition.

Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a thorough, thirty-one page Report and Recommendation. He recommended denying the motion to stay, denying the motion to amend and dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief.1 Bradley duly filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 23).

I have carefully considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as well as Bradley's objections. I accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bianchini and see no reason to modify, amend or reject the Report and Recommendation. I, therefore, accept the Report and Recommendation.

I concur with all of the findings made by Magistrate Judge Bianchini. I concur with him that Bradley's original petition was filed timely. I also agree with his assessment that Bradley's request to amend the petition should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The requested amendment essentially seeks to raise Fourth Amendment claims and as the Magistrate Judge discussed, leave to amend for such claims would be futile.

I also agree with Magistrate Judge Bianchini's assessment that Bradley has failed to meet the requirements for granting a stay and abeyance as set forth in the United States Supreme Court case of Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Bradley has failed to demonstrate either good cause or that his claims are potentially meritorious and, therefore, it would be an abuse of discretion to order the stay-and-abeyance procedure in this case.

In addition to the procedural motions, Magistrate Judge Bianchini carefully considered the substantive claims advanced by Bradley in the original petition, and in the interest of judicial economy, the claims sought to be raised by the proposed amendment. Magistrate Judge Bianchini discusses all of the contentions, including the Fourth Amendment claims which were discussed in depth before the New York State appellate courts.

It is clear that the State did provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment claims, and there is no basis for habeas corpus relief relative to such Fourth Amendment claims. The State procedure was certainly adequate and fair, and there is absolutely no basis for litigating those claims in Federal Court. As the Magistrate Judge noted, just because Bradley disagrees with the determinations of the State Court does not justify relitigating the matters here in Federal Court.

I have considered the other claims raised by Bradley and discussed by Magistrate Judge Bianchini, and I accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge's reasoning, analysis and conclusion that habeas corpus relief is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

I accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini (Dkt. # 22). Petitioner's motion to stay (Dkt. # 14) is denied. Petitioner's motion to amend the petition (Dkt. # 11) is denied.

Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is in all respects dismissed. Petitioner's motion for discovery (Dkt. # 24) is denied as moot.

Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal constitutional right and, therefore, I deny a certificate of appealability with respect to any of petitioner's claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

VICTOR E. BIANCHINI, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Introduction

Pro se petitioner Michael M. Bradley ("Bradley" or "petitioner") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his January 31, 2000 conviction in Monroe County Court on charges of second degree (intentional) murder. The matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to hear and dispose of all nondispositive motions and to issue a report and recommendation with regard to the disposition of Bradley's petition. Presently pending before the Court are Bradley's renewed motion for a stay and his motion to amend the petition.

II. Factual Background and State Court Proceedings

The conviction here at issue stems from Bradley's involvement in the death of James Domm ("Domm" or "the victim") in early February 1999.1 Apparently, Bradley at the time was staying with Domm at Domm's townhouse in the Town of Fairport, New York. On February 15, 1999, two of Domm's neighbors, who had a key to his townhouse, went in to check on him. Finding the master bedroom door locked, they pried it open with a screwdriver. A large blood stain marked the bed and there were spatters of what appeared to be blood on the walls. Domm, and his car, a 1996 Pontiac Grand Am, were missing. The police were called and a missing person's alert went out nationwide on February 16, 1999.

That same night, Officer Vellotti of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police noticed a Pontiac with New York license plates driving down State Route 163 outside of the City of Laughlin, 96 miles south of Las Vegas. Officer Vellotti said that the car was covered with so much road salt and dirt that it appeared to have been driven straight across the country from New York. After doing a license plate check, the officer learned that the owner, Domm, was missing and considered to be in possible danger. As the officer was acquiring this information, the Pontiac "veered into the left hand turn lane without signaling," "as required in Nevada prior to doing the lane change." Officer Vellotti put on his emergency lights and signaled the vehicle to a stop, about a half-mile from where he first saw it.

When asked if he was Domm, Bradley replied negatively and presented his New York driver's license. Bradley claimed to have seen Domm two days before in Las Vegas, where Domm was supposedly staying with Bradley's brother. However, Officer Vellotti related, Bradley could not provide a name or address. Although authorized to arrest Bradley for the traffic infraction, Officer Vellotti did not do so, telling Bradley that he was free to go as soon as Domm was located. This prompted Bradley to offer to find Domm on his own and have him contact the police. Perceiving Bradley to be "nervous" and "deceptive," Officer Vellotti declined the offer. Although Bradley was not under arrest at that point, Officer Vellotti placed him in handcuffs because they were in a "desolate" area of the desert.

A few minutes later, Officer Burgess arrived and was brought up to speed on the situation. When Officer Burgess asked Officer Vellotti if he had the keys, Bradley voluntarily gestured to his front pants' pocket and said, "Here they are." Officer Burgess took them and asked Bradley twice for permission to look in the trunk, to which Bradley nodded affirmatively and said, "Uh," both times.

Upon opening the trunk, Officer Burgess found a large object, about the size and shape of a human being, covered with a blue tarp and sealed in duct tape. There was a shovel on top of the body, and next to it a steak knife as well as a cable-driven winch to which a length of knotted rope had been attached. The odor of decaying flesh was immediately obvious to both officers. As Officer Vellotti walked back to where Bradley was standing, he commented, "I believe we found Mr. Domm." At this, Bradley smiled and began to shake, commenting, "I guess the game's over."

The officers complied with Bradley's request to be placed in the patrol car, and read him his rights under Miranda. A third police officer, Sergeant Burgess (Officer Burgess' father), arrived about twenty minutes later and learned that the first two officers had not told Bradley why he was being arrested. The third officer asked Bradley if he knew the reason, and Bradley answered, "Murder." When asked whether the murder was of the person found in the trunk of the Pontiac, Bradley replied, "So they say."

Local homicide detectives secured a warrant for Bradley's arrest. A few hours after he was booked at the detention center in the town where he was pulled over, Bradley was transported to a jail in Las Vegas. When another inmate, Gary Daughtry, commented on the fact that Bradley was already wearing "county blues," Bradley explained that the police had confiscated the clothes he had been wearing after they found the dead body. Bradley expressed surprise that Daughtry had not heard about the arrest on television. Daughtry asked, "So you killed the guy?" Bradley responded, "Yeah." Bradley agreed with Daughtry that he probably should not admit this to anyone else, but said to Daughtry, "[I]f push comes to shove, I will play the crazy role." Bradley also claimed that the police would not be able to find any evidence on his clothing.

The following morning, Bradley had another conversation with Daughtry at the jail in which he explained how he had driven from Rochester, sleeping "on the side of the road" and stopping at one point in Arizona.2 Bradley did not respond when Daughtry expressed surprise that he did not dispose of the body somewhere along the way to Nevada. Nor did Bradley explain why he had killed Domm; he said only that they had had a dispute about a key...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Cotto v. Fischer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Agosto 2012
    ...prong of the Stone v. Powell exception. Cf. Ramirez v. Phillips, 2007 WL 3195158, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007); Bradley v. LaClair, 599 F. Supp.2d 395, 409 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (describing adequacy of Article 710 and noting that the defendant "took advantage of the opportunity to challenge the le......
  • Cobb v. Lee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 27 Marzo 2022
    ... ... “pending.” See Smalls v. Smith , No ... 05-cv-5182, 2009 WL 2902516, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2009); ... Bradley v. LaClair , 599 F.Supp.2d 395, 404 (W.D.N.Y ... 2009) ... The ... Combined Motion ceased to be “pending” when it ... ...
  • Layne v. Capra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 Septiembre 2018
    ...of how he acted diligently to obtain this material in the more than six years since he was convicted. See, e.g., Bradley v. LaClair, 599 F. Supp. 2d 395, 407 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying stay where document that served as factual predicate for new claim could have been discovered earlier "[w]it......
  • Allen v. New York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 12 Octubre 2016
    ...when they are handed over to prison officials for forwarding to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Bradley v. LaClair, 599 F. Supp. 2d 395 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (applying the rule to federal habeas petitions). The exact date on which petitioner handed over his petition to prison......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT