United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
MATTHEW C. SMITH, Petitioner,
MIKE PARRIS, Respondent.
ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
J. DANIEL BREEN, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("§ 2254 Petition") filed by Petitioner, Matthew C. Smith, Tennessee Department of Correction prisoner number 465320, an inmate at the Northwest Correctional Complex ("NWCX") in Tiptonville, Tennessee, (Docket Entry ("D.E.") 1), and Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Time-Barred Habeas Petition (D.E. 16; D.E. 17), filed by Henry Steward, the previous Warden of the NWCX. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and DENIES the § 2254 Petition.
A. State Court Procedural History
On August 3, 2009, a grand jury in Madison County, Tennessee, returned a four-count indictment against Smith. (D.E. 13-1 at 6-9.) Count 1 charged Smith with the attempted especially aggravated kidnapping of I.H., a child under the age of thirteen years. ( Id. at 7.) Petitioner was charged in Count 3 with the attempted especially aggravated kidnapping of B.J., a child under the age of thirteen years. ( Id. at 8.) Count 4 charged Smith with attempted rape of a child, namely, B.J. ( Id. at 9.) On or about January 8, 2010, the parties entered into a plea agreement whereby the inmate would plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3 in exchange for concurrent sentences of eight years at 30% on each count. (D.E. 13-1 at 29-30.) Judgments were entered on January 19, 2010. (D.E. 15-1 at 77-78.) Smith did not appeal.
The § 2254 Petition reflects that Smith did not file any collateral challenge to his convictions and sentences. (D.E. 1 at 3.)
B. Procedural History of Smith's § 2254 Petition
On April 8, 2014, Petitioner filed his pro se complaint, accompanied by the habeas filing fee. (D.E. 1; D.E. 2.) In an order issued on April 30, 2014, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the Petition within twenty-three days. (D.E. 4.) The order stated that "[t]he response shall include the complete trial and appellate record of Petitioner's original case and any subsequent state petitions for collateral relief." ( Id. at 1.)
On June 9, 2014, the Warden filed a Motion to Dismiss the § 2254 Petition as time-barred. (D.E. 9.) He did not comply with the order to file the state-court record, and he provided no explanation for his failure to do so. The Court issued an order on July 3, 2014, denying Respondent's motion to dismiss without prejudice and directing him, for the second time, to file the state-court record and a response to the § 2254 Petition. (D.E. 10.)
On July 31, 2014, the Warden filed a portion of the state-court record. (D.E. 13.) He filed the judgments and a Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Time-Barred Habeas Petition on August 11, 2014. (D.E. 15; D.E. 16; D.E. 17.) Petitioner has not responded to the motion, and the time for a response has expired.
II. PETITIONER'S FEDERAL HABEAS CLAIMS
In his Petition, Smith raises the following issues:
1. "There is no offense listed as Attempted Especially Aggravated Kidnapping, ...