Sanders v. Warden of Allendale Corr. Inst.
| Decision Date | 28 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 2:17-01819-HMH-MGB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Tunzy A. Sanders, #255493, Petitioner, v. Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent. |
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 Tunzy A. Sanders ("Sanders"), proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baker recommends granting Sanders' motion to amend, granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Sanders' petition with prejudice on the basis that it is time-barred, and denying a certificate of appealability. In addition, Magistrate Judge Baker also addressed the merits of Sanders' petition and recommended dismissing the petition on the merits. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the Respondent's motion for summary judgment, dismisses Sanders' § 2254petition as time-barred, dismisses Sanders' motion to amend as moot, and denies a certificate of appealability.
This case has a lengthy and complicated procedural history. The facts of this case are fully set forth in the Report and Recommendation and adopted herein, and the most pertinent facts are summarized below. Sanders is currently incarcerated at the Allendale Correctional Institution, a South Carolina Department of Corrections facility. In July 1998, Sanders was indicted in state court for murder, and in January 1999, Sanders was indicted in state court for attempted armed robbery and criminal conspiracy. (Ret. & Mem. Attach. 1 (App'x 809-14), ECF No. 17-5.) After a jury trial held from January 11-14, 1999, Sanders was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Id. Attach. 47 (Dismissal Order 1), ECF No. 17-52.) The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed his convictions and remanded for a new trial because Sanders' Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when his sister, Brenda K. Sanders, an attorney from Michigan, was removed as counsel before trial. State v. Sanders, 534 S.E.2d 696, 697 (S.C. 2000).
On remand, Sanders elected to proceed with a bench trial, which was held from February 5-8, 2001. (Ret. & Mem. Attach. 1 (App'x 1), ECF No. 17-1.) Sanders was represented by his sister and Daniel W. Williams. (Id. Attach. 1 (App'x 1), ECF No. 17-1.) The state court found Sanders guilty on all charges and sentenced him to thirty-five years' imprisonment on the murder conviction, twenty-five years' imprisonment on the attempted armed robbery conviction, and five years' imprisonment on the criminal conspiracy conviction, all terms to run concurrently. (Id. Attach. 1 (App'x 427-35), ECF No. 17-2.)
On February 15, 2001, Sanders appealed his conviction. (Id. Attach. 4 (Not. of Appeal), ECF No. 17-8.) On October 20, 2003, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. State v. Sanders, 588 S.E.2d 142 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003). On May 20, 2004, Sanders filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of South Carolina, (Ret. & Mem. Attach. 10 (Pet. Writ Cert.), ECF No. 17-14), which was denied on May 18, 2005. (Id. Attach. 12 (Letter Order May 18, 2005), ECF No. 17-16.) On May 19, 2005, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a remittitur. (Id. Attach. 13 (Rem.), ECF No. 17-17.)
On May 11, 2006, Sanders filed his first application for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). (Id. Attach. 1 (App'x 480-509), ECF Nos. 17-2, 17-3, 17-4.) After an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied Sanders' PCR application and dismissed the petition on October 4, 2007. (Id. Attach. 17 (Dismissal Order Oct. 4, 2007), ECF No. 17-21.) Sanders did not appeal the dismissal of the first PCR action.
On June 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a second PCR application. (Ret. & Mem. Attach. 18 (Second PCR App.), ECF No. 17-22.) Eventually, on March 23, 2012, due to deficiencies in the transcript from the first PCR hearing, an inability to fully reconstruct the missing parts of the record, and issues regarding PCR counsel, the Supreme Court of South Carolina granted Sanders' petition for a de novo hearing on his first PCR application. (Id. Attach. 28 (Order Mar. 23, 2012), ECF No. 17-32.) On August 19, 2014, the state court denied Sanders' second PCR application and dismissed the petition. (Id. Attach. 1 (App'x 738-777), ECF 17-4, 17-5.)
On December 21, 2015, Sanders filed a petition for writ of certiorari appealing the second PCR court's decision. (Id. Attach. 37 (Pet. Writ Cert.), ECF No. 17-42.) While that petition was pending, Sanders filed a third PCR application on July 1, 2016. (Id. Attach. 45(Third PCR App.), ECF 17-50.) The state filed a motion to dismiss, and the court granted the motion to dismiss. (Id. Attach. 47 (Order Nov. 30, 2016), ECF No. 17-52.) Sanders then filed a consent motion to vacate the order of dismissal because he was not served with the motion to dismiss. (Ret. & Mem. Attach. 49 (Con. Mot. Vacate), ECF No. 17-54.) To date, the state court has not ruled on this motion, and it remains pending.2 On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the second PCR action. (Id. Attach. 42 (Order Jan. 13, 2017), ECF No. 17-47.) A remittitur was filed on February 2, 2017. (Id. Attach. 43 (Rem.), ECF No. 17-48.)
Sanders filed the instant § 2254 petition on July 16, 2017,3 raising five (5) grounds for relief. (§ 2254 Pet., generally, ECF No. 1.) On October 13, 2017, Sanders filed a motion to amend his petition, but did not allege any further grounds for relief in that document. (Mot. Amend, ECF No. 15.) On October 17, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 18.) After various other motions, Sanders responded in opposition on March 16, 2018, wherein he informally supplemented his petition for habeas corpus and raised twenty-seven (27) additional grounds for relief. (Resp. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 51.) Sanders filed a supplement to his response in opposition on April 2, 2018. (Supp. Resp. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 57.) On April 9, 2018, Respondent replied. (Reply, ECF No. 61.) Magistrate Judge Baker issued a Report and Recommendation on July 13, 2018, recommending granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment, granting Sanders' motion to amend,dismissing Sanders' petition with prejudice, and denying a certificate of appealability. (R&R 67, ECF No. 62.) Sanders timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 17, 2018. (Objs., ECF No. 67.) This matter is now ripe for consideration.
Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in his favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, Id. at 248.
A litigant "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another." Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985). "[W]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, disposition by summary judgment is appropriate." Monahan v. Cty. of Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1265 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Ballenger v. N.C. Agric. Extension Serv., 815 F.2d 1001, 1005 (4th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct," the petitioner has "the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). With respect to reviewing the state court's application of federal law, "'a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.'" Humphries v. Ozmint, 397 F.3d 206, 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000)). Further, "an 'unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law,' because an...
To continue reading
Request your trial