United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
NORMAN
K. MOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Labarry
Beeler, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, asserting his actual innocence regarding
a conviction in Culpepper County Circuit Court. Respondent
filed a motion to dismiss Beeler's § 2254 petition,
and Beeler responded, making the matter ripe for disposition.
After review of the record, I will grant the motion to
dismiss.
I.
Procedural Background
In
1999, Beeler pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in the
Culpepper County Circuit Court. The circuit court sentenced
Beeler to life in prison. Beeler did not pursue a direct
appeal.
Beeler
did, however, file a timely petition for a writ of habeas
corpus to the Virginia Supreme Court, raising three
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court dismissed
the petition in 2000. Next, he filed a federal habeas
petition, which the district court denied in 2001. Beeler
appealed, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's decision. Lastly, he petitioned for
a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court,
but the Court refused review.
In
2016, Beeler filed the present habeas action, alleging two
actual innocence claims:
1.
Newly discovered evidence shows that the petitioner was
involuntarily intoxicated and actually innocent when he
committed his crime and thus his procedural defaults should
not be enforced against him; and
2. The
newly discovered evidence requires a new trial for the
petitioner. Beeler has not raised either claim before the
current petition.
II.
Actual Innocence Gateway
“Generally,
a federal court may not consider claims that a petitioner
failed to raise at the time and in the manner required under
state law.” Teleguz v. Zook, 806 F.3d 803, 807
(4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). The “actual
innocence gateway” under Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298 (1995) and McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct.
1924 (2013) enables a federal court to review otherwise
defaulted or time-barred claims when a petitioner makes a
“compelling showing of actual innocence.”
Teleguz, 806 F.3d at 807. For a petitioner to claim
actual innocence, “[new] evidence must establish
sufficient doubt about [a petitioner's] guilt to justify
the conclusion that his [incarceration] would be a
miscarriage of justice unless his conviction was the
product of a fair trial.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at
316 (emphasis in original). Actual innocence “does not
by itself provide a basis for relief. Instead, [the
petitioner's] claim for relief depends critically on the
validity of his [procedurally defaulted claim].”
Id. at 315 (citing Herrera v. Collins, 506
U.S. 390, 403 (1993)) (emphasis added).
Beeler
has alleged actual innocence, and he demands a new trial, but
he has not asserted any underlying substantive allegations
that are cognizable on federal habeas review. Actual
innocence is merely a gateway that enables federal review of
otherwise defaulted claims; it is not, in and of itself, a
claim for habeas relief under § 2254.
Beeler
argues that his actual innocence entitles him to review of
his defaulted claims and a new trial. However, neither
“claim” in his present petition is an allegation
of error that renders his conviction contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, federal law, or an unreasonable
determination of facts. In Herrera v. Collins, the
Supreme Court addressed precisely this situation:
Petitioner in this case is simply not entitled to habeas
relief . . . [f]or he does not seek excusal of a procedural
error so that he may bring an independent constitutional
claim challenging his conviction or sentence, but rather
argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because newly
discovered evidence shows that his conviction is factually
incorrect. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception
is available “only where the prisoner supplements his
constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual
...