United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. GIBNEY JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Lee Johnson, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro
se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 3)
challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court for the City
of Richmond, Virginia ("Circuit Court") for rape.
Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that, inter
alia, the one-year statute of limitations governing
federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. (ECF
No. 15.) Johnson has filed a Response. (ECF No. 20.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15)
will be GRANTED.
PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
pled guilty to rape in the Circuit Court. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson t CR06-F-1433-00, at
1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 16, 2006.) On August 16, 2006, the
Circuit Court entered the final judgment with respect to this
conviction and sentenced Johnson to an active term of
imprisonment of thirteen years. Id. at 1-2. Johnson
did not appeal.
November 7, 2006, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia. See
Johnson v. Dir. of the Dep't Corr., No. 062264, at 1
(Va. Oct. 19, 2007). On October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court
of Virginia dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Id. at 1-2.
March 23, 2017, this Court received from Johnson a document
titled, "INDEPENDENT ACTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA
THROUGH EXTRINSIC FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF Va. Code Ann.
(8.01-428D)." (ECF No. 1, at l.) Johnson subsequently
clarified his wish to file a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and then filed the § 2254 Petition. (ECF No. 3.)
In his § 2254 Petition, Johnson contends that he is
entitled to relief because:
Claim One The victim provided two different statements with
respect to the crime. (§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
Claim Two Counsel never formulated a plan on how to defend
against the charges. (Id. at 7.)
Claim Three "Counsel never stated that penetration was
an element of rape ...." (Id. at 8.)
Claim Four Counsel failed to withdraw after she passed
Johnson's case along to another attorney. (Id.
also list a series of nine other "GROUNDS, " which
are little more than sentence fragments. (Id. at
16.) For example, without further elaboration, Johnson
states: "5] Failure to request necessary expert; 6]
manifest-injustice; 7] extrinsic fraud" (Id.
Statute of Limitations
contends that the federal statute of limitations bars
Johnson's claims. Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28
U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one-year period of
limitation for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to ...