United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
overview of Petitioner Anthony Quinten Kelly's
('"Kelly") writ history in the Court is
necessary. 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 appealability were denied. The Fourth Circuit
subsequently denied certificates of appealability and
dismissed the appeal.
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
convictions on first-degree rape, first-degree assault and
use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of
violence in State v. Kelly, Case No. 96433. As best
determined by the Court, the Petition sets out the following
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. The State unconscionably delayed in bringing Kelly to
ECF No. 1. pp. 3-7.
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 Speedy Ruling, Release, Partial Judgment under Rule
54, 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 Kelly's previous federal habeas
corpus cases were assigned to Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.,
who issued dispositive Memoranda and Orders, and Kelly's
cases were assigned to the undersigned judge after Judge
Williams' 2014 retirement. Kelly requests that the 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); see also
Moreover, opinions formed by the judge during the current
proceeding, or a prior one, do not generally warrant recusal.
Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir.
2011). 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 citation omitted).
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 ...