United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Procedural History in this Court
overview of Petitioner Anthony Quinten Kelly's
("Kelly") writ history in the Court is in . On
August 14, 2009, Kelly filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254
"Emergency" Petition for habeas corpus relief
raising a direct attack on his 2008 convictions on murder,
rape, and other related offenses arising out of three
separate trials in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County. See Kelly v. Shearin, et al,
Civil Action No. AW-09-2241 (D. Md.). The matter was fully
briefed and on November 19, 2009, the Petition was dismissed
without prejudice for the failure to exhaust state court
remedies as to all three convictions. Certificates of
appealability and the appeals which followed were denied.
January 28, 2011, the Court received three Petitions for writ
of habeas corpus representing Kelly's attempt to re-file
a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attack on his three 2008 convictions.
See Kelly v. Shearin, el al., Civil Action Nos.
AW-11-262, AW-11-263 & AW-11-264. The cases were consolidated
and, after briefing, the Petitions were dismissed without
prejudice for non-exhaustion of remedies. Certificates of
appealabiliiy were denied. The Fourth Circuit subsequently
denied certificates of appealability and dismissed the
21, 2017, the Court received the above-captioned case,
representing Anthony Kelly's ("Kelly") most
recent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attack on one of his three 2008
convictions in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The
instant case attacks Kelly's first-degree rape conviction
in State v. Kelly, Case No. 97760 and, as best
determined by the Court, sets out the following grounds:
I. Kelly was convicted on the basis of an unconstitutionally
II. Evidence used to convict Kelly was obtained through an
illegal search and seizure; and
III. Kelly's sentence was illegally enhanced on the basis
of a prior conviction.
ECF No. 1, pp. 3-5.
their Answer Respondents argue that the Petition is subject
to dismissal because the ground are unexhausted and/or
time-barred. ECF No. 9. Kelly has filed a
Traverse (ECF No. 10), along with a number of
letters,  and several '"Emergency"
Motions seeking a Speedy Ruling, Release, Partial Judgment,
and an Evidentiary Hearing, along with a Motion for
Reassignment of the Case to a Different Judge, all filed
after Respondents' Answer. ECF Nos. 12-16. For reasons to
follow, Kelly's Motions shall be denied and the Petition
shall be DISMISSED as time-barred.
Motion for Reassignment
undersigned observes that's Kelly's previous federal
habeas corpus cases were assigned to Judge Alexander
Williams, Jr., who issued dispositive Memoranda and Orders.
Kelly's cases were assigned to the undersigned judge
after Judge Williams' 2014 retirement. Kelly requests
that this case be reassigned to a different judge. He claims
that the undersigned "has a strong personal
interest" in this case and has "substantial
difficulty putting out of his mind previously-expressed views
or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence
that must be rejected." ECF No. 16, p. 2. He questions
the Court's competency and impartiality. Id.
Motion, construed as a motion for recusal, shall be denied.
To be disqualifying, the alleged bias or prejudice must stem
from an extrajudicial source. See United States v.
Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966). In other
words, it must arise from "events, proceedings, or
experiences outside the courtroom." Sales v.
Grant, 158 F.3d 768, 781 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, on
their own, judicial rulings "almost never constitute a
valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." United
States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 * (4th Cir. 2008)
(citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, opinions
formed by the judge during the current proceeding, or a prior
one, do not generally warrant recusal. Id. A judge
is neither required to recuse himself "simply because of
unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation, "
nor "simply because [he] possesses some tangential
relationship to the proceedings." United States v.
Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal
the judge against whom the affidavit of bias is filed may
rule on its legal sufficiency. See Marty's Floor
Covering Co., Inc. v. GAF Corp.,604 F.2d 266, 268 (4th
Cir. 1979) (internal citation omitted). The affidavit shall
be construed "strictly against the movant to prevent
abuse." United States v. Miller, 355 F.Supp.2d
404, 405 (D. D.C. 2005). Kelly has failed to present an
affidavit which points to an ...