United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR, Petitioner,
EDDIE PEARSON, WARDEN, Respondent.
V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., a Virginia state prisoner proceeding
pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No.
13) challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court for the
City of Alexandria, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). On
September 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation wherein he recommended denying the § 2254
Petition as untimely. (ECF No. 31.) The Court advised Sirleaf
that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after
the entry of the Report and Recommendation. After receiving
two extensions of time, on November 28, 2018, the Court
received a ninety-four-page, rambling, document labeled,
"§1:14 Allegation - Claim arising under treaty [28
USCA 1331; Fed R Civ P 8(a)(1)]." (ECF No. 37
(alteration in original).) The Court construes this
submission as Sirleaf s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, Sirleaf s
Objections will be OVERRULED, and his § 2254 Petition
will be DENIED.
Magistrate Judge made the following findings and
December 3, 2003, pursuant to a guilty plea, Sirleaf was
convicted of second-degree murder and was sentenced by the
Circuit Court to twenty years of incarceration.
Commonwealth v. Sirleaf, No. CF030455, at 1-2 (Va.
Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 2003). The Circuit Court entered final
judgment on December 5, 2003. Id. Sirleaf did not
file an appeal.
State Habeas Proceedings
December 2, 2004, Sirleaf filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Circuit Court. Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus 1, Sirleaf v. Commonwealth, No.
CL04001762 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 2, 2004). On April 4, 2005, the
Circuit Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Sirleaf v. Commonwealth, No. CL04001762, at 11 (Va.
Cir. Ct. Apr. 4, 2005). Sirleaf sought no further review in
the state courts of his conviction and sentence.
§ 2254 Petition
August 18, 2017, Sirleaf filed a standardized form for filing
a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1, at
By Memorandum Order entered on October 6, 2017, the Court
directed Sirleaf to identify which judgment he challenged and
to complete and return either the standardized form for
filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition or the standardized
form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Sirleaf
filed the standardized form for filing a § 2241
petition, but the § 2241 petition failed to correct any
of the deficiencies identified by the Court in its October 6,
2017 Memorandum Order. Despite filing a § 2241 petition,
it appeared that Sirleaf intended to challenge his state
conviction. By Memorandum Order entered on December 4, 2017,
the Court directed Sirleaf to show good cause as to why this
action should proceed as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, and not as a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Instead of filing a
response to the show cause order, Sirleaf filed what appeared
to be a completed standardized form for filing a § 2254
petition based on the Court's cursory initial review.
(ECF No. 13.) Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on
January 26, 2018, the Court explained that "the action
proceeds solely on this § 2254 petition (ECF No. 13),
and it SUPPLANTS all previously filed petitions." (ECF
No. 15, at 1.)
further review of the § 2254 Petition, it appears that
Sirleaf filled out the first few pages of the standardized
form for filing a § 2254 petition and then simply
inserted old pages from one of the versions of the §
2241 petition he filed previously. (See ECF No. 13,
at 4-14.) Sirleaf s ongoing non-compliance with the
Court's directives standing alone warrants dismissal of
this action. Nevertheless, because the § 2254 Petition
is clearly untimely, the Court continues with its review of
the § 2254 Petition. In his § 2254 Petition,
Sirleaf asserts the following claim for relief:
Claim One: "Violation of Vienna Convention Consular
Relations... 5th, 6th, [and] 14th Amendment violations."
(§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
Claim Two: "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel"
(Id. at 7.)
Claim Three: "Petitioner held in violation of U.S.
Treaty" (Id. at 8.)
Claim Four: "Petitioner held in violation of U.S.
Treaty...." (Id. at 10.)
moves to dismiss (ECF No. 26) on the ground that Sirleaf s
§ 2254 Petition is barred by the one-year statute of
limitations and should be dismissed.
Statute of Limitations
Respondent contends that the federal statute of limitations
bars Sirleaf 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 the judgment of a
state court. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) now
1. A 1 -year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made