Marquis Spencer McDonald v. Kenneth Sharp, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. The court held that Marquis Spencer McDonald’s petition was untimely, that equitable tolling and the actual-innocence gateway did not apply, and that his objections lacked merit. The court granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied McDonald’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. McDonald's federal habeas petition was filed after AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations had expired and was therefore untimely.
2. McDonald was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances and failed to show that he exercised due diligence in preserving his legal rights before the limitations period expired.
3. McDonald's untimely state post-conviction petition did not toll AEDPA's limitations period because an untimely post-conviction petition is not properly filed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
4. McDonald failed to satisfy the Schlup/McQuiggin actual-innocence gateway because he did not show, in light of new reliable evidence, that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. McDonald was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his equitable-tolling and actual-innocence claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McDonald's § 2254 petition was untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether McDonald established extraordinary circumstances and due diligence sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.
3. Whether an untimely petition could proceed through the Schlup/McQuiggin actual-innocence gateway based on the asserted new scientific and ballistics evidence.
4. Whether McDonald was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his equitable-tolling and actual-innocence claims.
5. Whether respondent was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of the petition with prejudice.

Disposition

dismissed