Martin v. Clark

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. JACKSON L. KISER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         John Phillip Martin, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his confinement on a judgment in the Halifax County Circuit Court for several crimes. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and Martin failed to respond, making the matter ripe for disposition. After review of the record, I grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition.^[1]

         I. Procedural History

         After a jury trial, the Halifax County Circuit Court convicted Martin of: attempted voluntary manslaughter, carjacking, eluding the police, identity theft, and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Martin also pleaded guilty to felon in possession of ammunition and violent felon in possession of a weapon charges. The trial court sentenced Martin to thirty-four years and three months' imprisonment, with six years suspended. Martin's state court appeals were unsuccessful, concluding on July 17, 2017.

         II. Claims

         On November 29, 2017, Martin filed the current petition, alleging the following grounds of habeas corpus relief:

1. Due process/equal protection rights when courts denied opportunity to be heard upon child custody hearing in the cases of both kids;

2. First Amendment Freedom of Religion rights;

3. Due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violated;

4. Due process rights violated when evidence that a subpoenaed witness had died was not turned over to him;

5. Due process rights violated by the destruction of evidence;

6. Due process rights violated when he was not present at all court proceedings;

7. Due process rights violated before arrest under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);

8. Equal protection rights violated by racial profiling;

9. Due process rights violated when law enforcement used excessive force against him during an unlawful traffic stop;

10. Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination violated;

11. Counsel failed to object to the perjured testimony of ...