Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redden v. Martin

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield

March 29, 2019

RONNIE REDDEN, Petitioner,
MICHAEL MARTIN, Warden, Respondent.



         By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 27).

         Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R on October 24, 2018, in which he recommended that the court deny petitioner's “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 11), grant respondent's “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 20), Deny as moot petitioner's “Motion to Reset Federal Clock or Timelines” (ECF NO. 12), and remove this matter from the court's docket.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). The petitioner filed a number of motions after the magistrate judge submitted his proposed findings and recommendations: Motion to Appeal Magistrate Omar Aboulhosn Recommendation (ECF NO. 29), Motion to Obtain Transcripts (ECF NO. 30), Motion to Obtain Statement (ECF No. 31), and Prayer of Relief (ECF No. 32). Based upon the petitioner's timely filing of these motions within the requisite time for filing objections to the PF&R and based upon the subject of the motions, the court construes these motions as objections to the magistrate judge's PF&R. The court reviews the petitioner's objections below.

         I. DISCUSSION

         a. Underlying Petition

         The instant matter refers to the petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

         In his proposed findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge thoroughly laid out the procedural history of the petitioner's relevant criminal cases and subsequent Habeas Corpus Petitions before the court. The background of the petitioner's petition is as follows:

         i. Criminal Action No. 95-F-153:

         On January 17, 1996, petitioner was convicted of first-degree sexual assault. State v. Redden, No. 95-F-153; (Document No. 3-6, p. 3.). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“WVSCA”) arguing that the Circuit Court erred in finding that petitioner knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. On May 29, 1997, the WVSCA issued an opinion affirming the decision of the Circuit Court of Mercer County. State v. Redden, 199 W.Va. 660, 487 S.E.2d 318 (1997). Petitioner did not file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

         ii. First Section 2254 Petition:

         On December 13, 2005, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his first Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody. Redden v. McBride, Civil Action No. 1:05-1147 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 1, 2006), (Document No. 1). In his Petition, petitioner challenged the validity of the sexual assault convictions obtained against him in two separate cases in the Circuit Court of Mercer County (Nos. 92-F-77 and 95-F-153). Id. By Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered on June 28, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort recommended that petitioner's Section 2254 Petition be denied as untimely. Id., (Document No. 7). Petitioner filed his Objections on July 3, 2006. Id., Document No. 8. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 1, 2006, United States District Judge David A. Faber overruled petitioner's Objections, adopted Judge VanDervort's recommendation, and dismissed petitioner's Section 2254 Petition as untimely. Id., (Document No. 9); Redden v. McBride, 2006 WL 2189727 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 1, 2006). Petitioner did not file an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

         iii. First State Habeas Petition:

         In 2008, Petitioner filed his first State habeas petition raising errors related to both his 1992 and 1996 convictions. (Document No. 11-2). Specifically, petitioner alleged the following grounds of error: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) the trial court improperly admitted 404(b) evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) denial of a jury trial; (5) failure of counsel to take an appeal; (6) defects in the indictment; (7) claims concerning use of informers to convict; and (8) sufficiency of evidence. Id. After conducting an omnibus hearing, the Circuit Court denied petitioner's habeas petition on December 16, 2010. Id. Petitioner appealed the Circuit Court's decision. (Document Nos. 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.