Ta'Kuan Bingham v. Chadwick Dotson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considers Ta’Kuan Bingham’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging Virginia convictions for arson and animal cruelty. The court concludes that the petition is barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations and that statutory tolling, equitable tolling, and the actual-innocence gateway do not apply. The court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The petition was untimely because Bingham's conviction became final on December 29, 2022, and, even assuming tolling during the pendency of his mandamus petition, he filed the federal petition after the remaining limitations period had expired.
2. Bingham's state motion to vacate and state habeas petition did not toll AEDPA's limitations period because both were dismissed as untimely or otherwise barred under Virginia law.
3. Bingham's prior federal § 2254 petition, which was dismissed without prejudice, did not toll AEDPA's statute of limitations.
4. Bingham was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not demonstrate diligent pursuit of his rights or an extraordinary circumstance that caused the late filing.
5. Bingham failed to establish an actual-innocence gateway permitting review of his untimely petition.
6. The Martinez v. Ryan exception did not apply because it concerns procedural default of ineffective-assistance claims, not tolling or extension of AEDPA's statute of limitations.
7. No certificate of appealability should issue because Bingham failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bingham's federal § 2254 petition was filed within AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether Bingham was entitled to statutory tolling for his state post-conviction proceedings.
3. Whether Bingham was entitled to equitable tolling based on his pro se status, lack of legal knowledge, or inability to obtain counsel.
4. Whether an actual-innocence gateway excused the untimely petition.
5. Whether Martinez v. Ryan supplied an exception to AEDPA's statute of limitations.
6. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

dismissed