Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blue v. Medeiros

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

November 13, 2017

LARRY BLUE, Petitioner,
v.
SEAN MEDEIROS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner has sought a writ of habeas corpus requesting relief from his Massachusetts state court firearms convictions. [ECF No. 1]. Currently pending before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. [ECF No. 13]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 18, 2010, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of trafficking in cocaine within 1, 000 feet of a school zone, possession of a firearm and ammunition without a license, and possession of marijuana.[1] [ECF No. 21-1 at 3-4, 177]. After trial, Petitioner also entered a guilty plea to an indictment charging him with being an armed career criminal. Commonwealth v. Blue, 994 N.E.2d 817, 2013 WL 5377118, at *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). He then timely appealed his convictions, arguing that three pretrial motions to suppress should have been allowed and that the Massachusetts firearm licensing scheme is unconstitutional. Id On September 27, 2013, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed his convictions. Id. On September 30, 2013, he filed a petition for rehearing, which was considered and denied on October 3, 2013. [ECF No. 21-1 at 18]. He subsequently filed an application for further appellate review, which was denied on November 21, 2013. Commonwealth v. Blue, 998 N.E.2d 342 (Mass. 2013).

         On February 21, 2014, after the indictment of Annie Dookhan and the discovery of widespread misconduct at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (“Hinton State Lab”), Petitioner moved for a stay of execution of sentence pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 31, claiming that the misconduct at the Hinton State Lab and Dookhan's perjured testimony at his trial created a reasonable likelihood that he would eventually obtain a new trial. [ECF No. 21-1 at 26, 29]. He asserted in his motion that he would file a motion for a new trial “as soon as possible.” Id. at 29.

         On March 3, 2014, while the motion for a stay of execution of sentence was pending, the Supreme Judicial Court issued Commonwealth v. Scott, 5 N.E.3d 530, 545 (Mass. 2014), which held that defendants for whom Dookhan served as the primary or secondary chemist were entitled to a conclusive presumption that egregious government misconduct had occurred in his or her case. On March 27, 2014, following a hearing, Petitioner's motion for a stay of execution of sentence was denied on the ground that his firearms convictions were unlikely to warrant a new trial even in light of Dookhan's misconduct. [ECF No. 21-1 at 26].

         On May 5, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, raising ineffective assistance of counsel and the same grounds supporting his motion for a stay of execution of sentence. [ECF No. 21 at 6]. Commonwealth v. Blue, 46 N.E.3d 114, 2016 WL 757758, at *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). On January 20, 2015, the motion for a new trial was granted as to Petitioner's drug charges but denied as to the firearms charges. Blue, 2016 WL 757758, at *1. On January 29, 2015, the Commonwealth nolle prossed Petitioner's drug charges. [ECF No. 21-1 at 14]. On January 22, 2015, Petitioner appealed the partial denial of his motion for a new trial. [ECF No. 21-1 at 14]. His appeal was denied on February 26, 2016, thereby affirming the partial denial of his motion. Blue, 2016 WL 757758, at *3. He then sought further appellate review, which was denied on April 27, 2016. Commonwealth v. Blue, 50 N.E.3d 192 (Mass. 2016).

         Petitioner eventually filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on March 20, 2017, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to argue that an undated affidavit accompanying a search warrant failed to establish probable cause. [ECF No. 1 at 6, 8]. Respondent then filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). [ECF No. 14 at 1, 5-6].

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         In evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the non-moving party's well-pleaded facts as true and consider those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 1999). “[T]he standard of review upon a motion to dismiss a habeas claim is whether the facts alleged by the petitioner, taken as true unless contradicted by the record, state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” United States v. Alba, 657 F.Supp.2d 309, 312 (D. Mass. 2009).

         B. Statutory Tolling

         The AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations on filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which begins to run on the latest of either:

(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 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.