Keith Edward Moss v. Chadwick S. Dotson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia considers Keith Edward Moss’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging Virginia convictions and sentence arising from assaults on law-enforcement and correctional officers. The court addresses exhaustion, procedural default, and the adequacy of state procedural grounds. The opinion grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss and denies Moss’s motion for summary judgment.

Holdings

1. Moss's claims were procedurally defaulted where Virginia courts rejected them because they should have been raised on direct appeal, and claims not presented to Virginia's highest court would now be barred. Moss failed to establish cause and prejudice to overcome the defaults.
2. Moss could not obtain federal habeas relief on his unlawful-seizure claim because Virginia afforded him a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment issue, and Stone v. Powell therefore barred federal habeas review.
3. Alleged excessive force and false arrest did not provide grounds to dismiss Moss's criminal convictions in habeas proceedings, and failure to bring him personally before a magistrate violated, at most, state law and did not establish a federal constitutional violation.
4. An allegedly unlawful original arrest did not deprive the Virginia circuit court of jurisdiction over charges for which Moss was later indicted and convicted.
5. Alleged violations of Virginia procedural statutes did not render Moss's convictions or sentence void ab initio and did not provide a basis for federal habeas relief absent a federal constitutional violation.
6. Moss failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's refusal to file futile dismissal motions was not deficient performance and caused no prejudice.
7. Moss's acquittal on some charges did not invalidate the earlier probable-cause determination; sworn testimony that he spit on an officer was sufficient to support probable cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Moss's claims were procedurally defaulted because Virginia courts rejected them under an independent and adequate state procedural rule or because he failed to present them to the state's highest court.
2. Whether Moss could obtain federal habeas relief based on alleged unlawful seizure, excessive force, false arrest, or failure to appear personally before a magistrate.
3. Whether an allegedly unlawful original arrest deprived the Virginia circuit court of jurisdiction over later charges and convictions.
4. Whether conclusory allegations that criminal records were forged stated a cognizable federal habeas claim.
5. Whether alleged violations of Virginia procedural statutes rendered Moss's convictions or sentence void ab initio or otherwise warranted federal habeas relief.
6. Whether Moss was denied effective assistance of counsel when appointed counsel declined to file proposed dismissal motions.
7. Whether the evidence supported probable cause despite Moss's later acquittal on some charges.
8. Whether an allegedly unlawful arrest gave Moss a right to resist or justified dismissal of charges arising from later assaults on correctional officers.

Disposition

dismissed