Scott v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 29 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:20cv5900-MCR/MAF |
| Parties | DAONTAE T. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 21, 2020, Petitioner Daontae T. Scott, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He filed a first amended § 2254 petition, ECF No. 18-1, and ultimately requested leave to file a second amended § 2254 petition, ECF No. 27, which this Court granted by order on October 28, 2021, ECF No. 28. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the second amended petition, ECF No. 34, as untimely. ECF No. 35. Petitioner has not filed a reply, although he was given the opportunity to do so. See ECF Nos. 28, 30 32, 38.
The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration, the undersigned has determined no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter. See Rule 8(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. For the reasons stated herein, the pleadings and attachments before the Court show Respondent's motion may be granted and the second amended § 2254 petition dismissed. Alternatively, in an abundance of caution, the Court should consider the first amended § 2254 petition (ECF No 18-1), in addition to the single untimely “Ground 4” in the second amended “supplemental” petition (ECF No. 34), and deny federal habeas relief on the grounds that relate back to his timely original petition (ECF No. 1), and also deny Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) as moot. See Rule 4, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases (authorizing dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” in federal court).
As indicated above, on October 21, 2020, Petitioner Scott filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. ECF No. 1. He indicated he was challenging his convictions in cases 2014-CF-4648 and 2015-CF-1105, from the First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, following bench trials during which Scott represented himself. Id. at 1; Ex. A at 141-54, 159-61, 166; Ex. C at 3-18, 111, 154.[1] In a motion submitted for mailing on November 30, 2020, ECF No. 6, Scott sought leave to file an amended § 2254 petition, which the Court granted by order on December 9, 2020, ECF No. 8.
Petitioner then requested an extension of time to submit his amended § 2254 petition. ECF No. 9. In support of his request, he stated he had no access to the prison law library because of COVID-19 quarantine restrictions. Id. at 2-3. He requested an extension of sixty (60) days. Id. at 3. By order on January 4, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner's requested extension, directing him to submit his amended petition on the appropriate forms on or before March 9, 2021. ECF No. 10.
Thereafter, on January 7, 2021, Petitioner Scott filed a “Motion to Stay and Abey Proceeding Pursuant to Pace v. DiGugliemo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005).” ECF No. 11. By order on March 17, 2021, this Court denied that motion and gave Petitioner an opportunity to file the amended § 2254 petition on or before April 19, 2021, in accordance with the Court's previous orders.
ECF No. 12; see ECF Nos. 8, 10. The Court also advised that, in the alternative, if Petitioner wished to voluntarily dismiss this proceeding, he could do so by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal, though cautioning him about the AEDPA limitations period and advising him that the filing of a federal habeas petition does not toll that period. ECF No. 12 at 3-4; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
On April 26, 2021, Petitioner submitted a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Federal Habeas Corpus.” ECF No. 13. At that point, however, Petitioner had not filed an amended § 2254 petition as instructed in the Court's previous orders. See ECF Nos. 8, 10, 12.
On May 31, 2021, Petitioner filed another “Motion to Stay/Abey Proceeding.” ECF No. 15. Petitioner's filing evidently crossed in the mail with this Court's order of June 9, 2021, which explained Petitioner had not complied with this Court's earlier orders and allowed Petitioner a final opportunity to submit an amended § 2254 petition according to the Court's instructions. ECF No. 14.
In the motion filed May 31, 2021, Petitioner stated he has a pending “post-conviction 3.800 amended post-conviction Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence,” which he filed in the First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County. ECF No. 15 at 1. He stated this state court motion has been pending since January 12, 2021, and he requested this Court “hold” his federal habeas petition until the state court rules on his motion. Id. Petitioner cited no authority for his request. See id.
By order on June 14, 2021, this Court denied the May 31 motion to stay. ECF No. 16. The Court allowed Petitioner until July 9, 2021, to submit an amended § 2254 petition. Id.
In early July 2021, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Accept as Timely/Adequately Filed,” ECF No. 18, his amended § 2254 petition, which he attached to his motion, ECF No. 18-1. The Court granted the motion and accepted the amended § 2254 petition. ECF No. 20.
Also in early July 2021, Petitioner filed another “Motion to Stay and Abey Proceeding to Pace v. Digugliemo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005).” ECF No. 19. In this motion, as in his first motion to stay, Petitioner explained he “filed his petition on the basis of information provided him by an Inmate Law Clerk and has just recently learned of the exhausted requirement under § 2244(b).” Id. at 1. Further, as in his first motion to stay, Petitioner stated that he “recently learned of a[n] unexhausted sentencing issue that is on the face of the record” and, accordingly, he “has compiled and file[d] a Rule 3.800(a) motion for postconviction relief to correct the illegal sentencing issue.” Id. at 2. He requested, as he did in his first motion to stay, “in an abundance of caution,” that this Court stay and abey his federal habeas petition given that he is “currently seeking collateral review proceedings in state court.” Id. As before, in support of his request, he cited Pace, 544 U.S. at 416-17, and Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). ECF No. 19 at 2. This time, unlike with his previous requests for a stay, Petitioner attached copies of his Rule 3.800(a) filings. See ECF No. 19-1, 19-2.
In the order denying the second motion to stay, this Court again explained that Petitioner's federal habeas proceeding has been pending since October 2020, see ECF No. 1, and he previously filed two other motions to stay/abey this federal proceeding, referencing the same pending state Rule 3.800(a) proceedings. ECF No. 20; see ECF Nos. 11, 15. In the orders denying those motions to stay/abey, this Court explained the applicable law, set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). See ECF No. 12, 16. Specifically, in Rhines, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “stay and abeyance” of a mixed federal habeas petition is appropriate only if (1) the petitioner had “good cause” for failing to exhaust the claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are “potentially meritorious”; and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. This Court determined Petitioner Scott had still not shown that he meets any of these three requirements and had asserted no basis to support a stay. ECF No. 20.
In particular, and perhaps most importantly, the Court explained the claims Petitioner raised in his Rule 3.800(a) proceeding are not the same as those he raised in his amended § 2254 petition. Compare ECF No. 18-1 with ECF No. 19-1, 19-2. In the amended § 2254 petition, Scott raised three grounds: (1) “[t]rial court erred by failing to renew the offer of counsel before the start of the second trial thus, violating Petitioner's 6th Amendment right to be represented by counsel at every critical stage of the process,” ECF No. 18-1 at 9; (2) “[a]ppellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that Court abused its discretion when it found Petitioner competent to stand trial without first allowing the experts to testify consistent with their reports, or obtain the third report,” id. at 11; and (3) “[p]re-trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to do any reasonable pre-trial investigation that would have been helpful to Petitioner's case, such as provide/conducting pre-trial depositions and other relevant factual background investigations,” id. at 13. In his Rule 3.800(a) motion, Scott asserted his sentence is illegal because the state trial court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, in enhancing his battery conviction to a felony, and in sentencing him for aggravated assault without a finding that he used a deadly weapon. See ECF No. 19-1, 19-2. Thus, the amended § 2254 petition contained none of the claims raised in the pending 3.800(a) proceeding. Petitioner asserted no basis to support a stay in this case and this Court denied his request. ECF No. 20.
The Court dire...
To continue reading
Request your trial