McKinnon v. Warden at Kershaw Corr. Inst.
| Decision Date | 02 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | C. A. 8:22-cv-1205-RMG-JDA |
| Parties | Sequoia McKinnon, Petitioner, v. Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution Respondent. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Sequoia McKinnon (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se brings this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) and is presently confined at the Kershaw Correctional Institution. [Doc. 1 at 1.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Judge. For the reasons below, this action is subject to summary dismissal.
Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the standard court form (the “Petition”) [Doc. 1] as well as approximately 165 pages of exhibits [Docs. 1-2; 1-3; 1-4 1-5; 1-6; 1-7]. The exhibits attached to the Petition appear to be drafted by another SCDC inmate, Lawrence Crawford, and the documents appear to be related to Mr. Crawford's cases.[1] Further, the undersigned notes that those documents have been filed in other actions pending in this Court. The exhibits include the following:
These documents are not related to Petitioner's criminal case or appeals, he is not identified in those documents, and he did not sign those documents.
The allegations in the Petition are difficult to decipher and Petitioner appears to provide a running narrative of his grievances throughout the Petition rather than answer the questions presented on the standard court form. [See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 3-4.] Nonetheless, the undersigned is able to glean the following pertinent information from the Petition. Petitioner pled guilty on June 22, 2016, in the Charleston County Court of General Sessions to the crimes of voluntary manslaughter and possession of a weapon during a violent crime.[2] [Id. at 1.] Petitioner contends that he filed an appeal in the South Carolina Supreme Court at case number 2021-000309.[3] [Id. at 2.] Petitioner alleges that he filed an application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) at case number 2020-CP-10-2523 which remains pending at this time. [Id. at 4.]
Petitioner appears to assert the following ground for habeas relief in his Petition:
[There is] fraud upon the court, criminal conspiracy and acts of obstruction of justice on the part of the state courts involved and government including the S.C. Attorney General as well as on the part of also federal parties involved across multiple jurisdictions.
[Id. at 5.] Although Petitioner repeats this allegation throughout his Petition, he does not provide any further explanation or any supporting facts. [Id. at 5, 6, 9, 10.] Instead, Petitioner cites to the exhibits attached to the Petition, which are unrelated to his underlying criminal cases, and notes as follows:
This document is also filed as a motion to the multi-district panel to give that this case is sought to by notice to be transferred as a tag along case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 as is argued. See attached pages for further explanation. The case was filed before the S.C. Supreme Court. Due to the fraud upon the court that occurred where that court to circumvent ruling fraudulently claimed that they did not know the issues that were being argued when it is clear from the U.S. Supreme Court petition the issues are indeed clear. Due to the magnitude of what is being argued, government officials conspired to compromise the U.S. Supreme Court itself. The Petitioner is presently working to correct this injustice. Since the Petitioner is not certain whether filing seeking writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court would toll his time to seek habeas corpus, in an abundance of caution, the Petitioner is filing this habeas corpus to lock in timeliness in case a future habeas corpus is needed. This document is also filed as a motion to stay this habeas corpus petition until these matters are given opportunity to be heard before the United States Supreme Court. The Petitioner gives the court judicial notice that this is one of the tag along cases referred to under case 9:21-cv-02526-TLW-MHC the Crawford case seeking to have these cases centralized for the purpose of 29 U.S.C. § 1407 transfer. The legal issues being argued are contain[ed] in the U.S. Supreme Court petition attached and the Petitioner seeks an extension of time to submit any additional issues that may need to be submitted once the S.C. U.S. District Court rules on the motion to stay this case pending U.S. Supreme Court review.
[ Id. at 3-4.] Petitioner does not identify the relief he seeks in this Petition. [ Id. at 15.]
Finally, by way of background, the undersigned notes the following procedural history of Petitioner's state court cases relevant to the Petition filed in this case.
In November 2013, Petitioner was charged in the Charleston County Court of General Sessions with murder at case number 2013A1010206201 and with possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime at case number 2013A1010206202. See State v. McKinnon, Nos. 2013A1010206201 and 2013A1010206202, available at the Charleston County Public Index, https://jcmsweb.charlestoncounty.org/ PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (search by case numbers “2013A1010206201” and “2013A1010206202”) (last visited Jun. 1, 2022). In March 2014, a grand jury indicted Petitioner as to those charges at indictment numbers 2014GS1001130 and 2014GS1001131. Id.
On June 22, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to the lesser included crime of voluntary manslaughter on the murder charge and to the charge of possession of a weapon during a violent crime as indicted. Id. That same day, the Honorable Deadra L. Jefferson sentenced Petitioner to a 30-year term of imprisonment on the voluntary manslaughter conviction and to a 5-year term of imprisonment on the weapons conviction. Id. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal from his convictions or sentence.
Petitioner filed his first PCR action in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas on May 25, 2017, at case number 2017-CP-10-02656 regarding his conviction and sentence. See McKinnon v. State, No. 2017-CP-10-02656, available at the Charleston County Public Index, https://jcmsweb.charlestoncounty.org/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (search by case number “2017CP1002656”) (last visited Jun. 1, 2022). On February 13, 2019, the Honorable G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., entered an order of dismissal denying the PCR application. Id. On March 6, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Id. On March 18, 2021, an order denying writ of certiorari was entered on the PCR docket. Id.
On June 12, 2020, Petitioner filed a second PCR action in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas at case number 2020-CP-10-02523. See McKinnon v. State, No. 2020-CP-10-02523, available at the Charleston County Public Index, https://jcmsweb.charlestoncounty.org/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (search by case number “2020CP1002523”) (last visited Jun. 1, 2022). That action remains pending at this time.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se petition filed in the above-captioned case. The review was conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat 1214, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This statute authorizes the Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, this Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2012). Pursuant to this rule, a district court is “authorized to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial