Johnson v. State of South Carolina
4:19-cv-01323
D.S.C.Jun 10, 2019Background
- Petitioner Tarone Devale Johnson was convicted of murder in Charleston County on September 3, 1999, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- State appellate review affirmed the conviction; the South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari; state post-conviction relief (PCR) was denied.
- Johnson previously filed a § 2254 habeas petition on January 16, 2009, which was dismissed with prejudice as untimely; the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal.
- In 2019 Johnson filed a second § 2254 petition challenging the same conviction in this district.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the 2019 petition as an unauthorized successive petition; Johnson filed no objections to the R&R.
- The district court adopted the R&R, dismissed the petition for lack of authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2019 § 2254 petition is a "successive" petition requiring prior circuit authorization | Johnson seeks to challenge his 1999 conviction again (requests merits review) | The 2019 petition attacks the same conviction already adjudicated in a prior § 2254; prior dismissal on timeliness is a judgment on the merits, so circuit authorization is required | Court held the petition is successive and dismissed for lack of Fourth Circuit authorization |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue | Johnson implicitly would seek COA to appeal the dismissal | The court argued reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling or merits assessment debatable | COA denied because the successive-petition ruling is not debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (pro se pleadings afforded liberal construction)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990) (limits of liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (magistrate judge recommendations are nonbinding; district court retains responsibility)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (where no objections to R&R, district court need only review for clear error)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard for procedural rulings)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) (COA jurisprudence guidance)