United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge.
Adam Marsh, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. I). Respondent moves
to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the
action is barred by the statute of limitations. Marsh has
responded. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 11) will be granted.
was convicted in the Circuit Court of Caroline County of
abduction with intent to defile, anal sodomy, and oral
sodomy. (ECF No. 13-3, at 1-2.) Marsh appealed his
convictions. (Id. at 1.) On December 17, 2015, the
Supreme Court of Virginia refused Marsh's petition for
appeal. (ECF No. 13-6, at 1.)
November 14, 2016, Marsh's mother filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus with the Circuit Court of the City of
Richmond. (ECF No. 19, at 6-7.) On April 12, 2017, the
Circuit Court for the City of Richmond transferred the action
to the Circuit Court for Caroline County. Marsh v.
Fleming, No. CL16-5069 (Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 12, 2017). In
transferring the action, the Circuit Court for the City of
Richmond observed that: "Pursuant to Va. Code §
8.01-654 (B) (1) 'only the circuit court which entered
the original judgment order of conviction or convictions
complained of in the petition shall have authority to issue
writs of habeas corpus.'" Id. On April 17,
2017, the Circuit Court of Caroline County filed Marsh's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id.
January 4, 2018, the Circuit Court of Caroline County
dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Marsh
v. Fleming, No. CL17000298-00, at 20 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan.
4, 2018). Marsh filed a notice of appeal, but failed to
timely file a petition for appeal. (ECF No. 13-7, at 1.)
January 31, 2019, Chase placed his § 2254 Petition in
the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§
2254 Pet. 56.) The Court deems the § 2254 Petition filed
as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988). Marsh contends that he is entitled to relief upon
the following grounds:
Claim One "Petitioner was subjected to multiple
punishments for the same criminal acts." (§ 2254
Claim Two The court "prejudicially encouraged the jury
to speed up their deliberations." (Id.)
Claim Three "The Court erroneously refused to dismiss
juror who would not apply the law or concept of burden of
proof was the prosecutions, the defendant's right not to
testify, and the presumption of innocence."
Claim Four "Denied effective assistance when juror
expressly admits bias on voir dire without a court response
or follow-up." (Id.)
Claim Five "Denied effective assistance when defense
attorney failed to rely on the exceptions of the rape shield
law, permitting the introduction evidence."
Claim Six "Denied due process because he was not
mirandized while in the custody of the Regional Jail as
instructed under the U.S. Department of Justice Final Rule of
the Prison Rape Elimination Act." (Id. at 5-6.)
Claim Seven "Prosecutorial misconduct, allowing a
witness testimony about a nolle prosequi case with
similarities to the ...