Ben Robert Stewart v. Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviews a habeas petitioner’s appeal of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order and objections to a Report and Recommendation. The court affirms the denial of appointed counsel and amendment of the habeas petition, adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and dismisses the petition. The court also denies remand, denies a certificate of appealability, and denies the appeal of the magistrate judge’s order.

Holdings

1. The denial of appointment of counsel was affirmed because a federal habeas petitioner has no constitutional right to counsel and Stewart did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting discretionary appointment.
2. The denial of leave to amend was affirmed because the proposed amendment was filed outside the AEDPA's one-year limitations period and did not relate back to the original habeas petition.
3. Respondent was entitled to summary judgment because Stewart failed to show that the state court's competency determination resulted from an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law or an unreasonable determination of the facts.
4. Stewart was not entitled to a stay or remand because he had exhausted his state-court appellate remedies and his unsupported conspiracy allegations did not establish a mixed petition or otherwise justify remand.
5. A certificate of appealability was denied because Stewart failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge clearly erred or acted contrary to law in denying appointment of counsel in the federal habeas proceeding.
2. Whether the magistrate judge clearly erred or acted contrary to law in denying leave to amend the habeas petition after the AEDPA limitations period and because the proposed claim did not relate back.
3. Whether Respondent was entitled to summary judgment on Stewart's competency-based habeas claims under the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
4. Whether Stewart demonstrated unexhausted claims warranting a stay or remand.
5. Whether Stewart was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed