Court to hear habeas case
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on one new case — a test of the one-year filing deadline for pursuing a habeas challenge in federal court. The main issue, in the case of Lawrence v. Florida (05-8820, is whether the filing period is suspended while a state prison inmate has a post-conviction petition for review pending in the Supreme Court.
The case involves a Florida death row inmate, Gary Lawrence, who was convicted of the beating death of a man who had been intimate with Lawrence’s wife, after the Lawrence couple had separated.
Once more, the Court took no action on Jose Padilla’s appeal challenging his capture and detention as an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism. The Court has examined Padilla v. Hanft (05-533) seven times without announcing any action on it.
As the Court opened its session, it noted the retirement last July 1 of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With O’Connor sitting in the Justices’ guest area, an exchange of letters was read from the bench. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., first read a letter from him to O’Connor, transmitting a letter her pre-Roberts colleague had written to her. Justice John Paul Stevens then read the colleagues’ letter, and Roberts concluded by reading a response from Justice O’Connor.
Among the cases denied review was an appeal by The New York Times, seeking to head off a libel and emotional distress lawsuit in Virginia federal court. The lawsuit was filed by Stephen J. Hatfill, a former Army research scientist, complaining of columns in The Times that he said created the impression that he was involved in the deadly anthrax attack on Washington in late 2001. After the case was dismissed in District Court, the Fourth Circuit Court revived it; en banc review in the Circuit Court was denied on a 6-6 vote. The Supreme Court case was New York Times v. Hatfill (05-897).
Here is the Eleventh Circuit opinion.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 27, 2006 @ 11:06 am
I just read the 11th Circuit’s opinion in this case, and it is a real piece of work. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the habeas petition was untimely because the time for filing the petition was not tolled while the cert petition from the denial of state collateral relief was pending. The district court was bound to reach that result because the 11th Circuit had previously so held, but the 6th Circuit had gone the other way on this issue.
In affirming, the panel really went out of its way to blast the district judge for: (1) waiting on his decision while a cert petition from the 6th Circuit case presenting the same issue was pending; and (2) granting a Certificate of Appealability. Perhaps it’s just me, but doesn’t it seem entirely reasonable for a judge to wait and see whether the Supreme Court takes a case presenting the exact same issue as the the case before him, particularly when there’s a circuit split on that issue? And doesn’t it seem entirely reasonable for a district judge to grant a COA on an issue, even though his circuit has already ruled on that issue, when a circuit split has since developed?
If I were the district judge, I’d find it really hard to resist sending a copy of the order granting cert to the judges on the 11th Circuit panel.
Comment by David Moran — March 27, 2006 @ 11:11 am
The savagery of the defendant’s actions in that case is unbelievable. Cases like this makes one wonder how the Supreme Court could have ever decided that a mandatory death penalty was forbidden by the Constitution.
Comment by federalist — March 27, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
On the question of whether a COA should have issued, I did not read the Eleventh Circuit opinion as “blasting” the district judge. The opinion says, “The district court should not have issued a COA on the statute of limitations issue because binding circuit precedent clearly disposed of the issue.” Nothing harsh in that. It is, after all, a reviewing court’s job: to say when it thinks the lower court erred and set a precedent for what should be done in the future.
Regarding the district court staying its proceedings while the Supreme Court considers a certiorari petition from another circuit, the language is stronger: abuse of discretion. I think it is warranted, though. If a petition should be denied or dismissed under circuit precedent, there is no reason for a district court to hold it up. The inmate is not going to be executed the next day. In the time it takes to schedule and carry out an execution, the reviewing courts can reconsider their precedent and issue their own stay, if that is what they are going to do.
Too many federal judges, it seems, are completely unaware that every day a stay remains in effect is a fresh denial of justice. The Eleventh Circuit opinion has a very good quote from an earlier opinion. “Each delay, for its span, is a commutation of a death sentence to one of imprisonment.” Thompson v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1495, 1506 (11th Cir. 1983). I would like to see this recognized more often.
I do not see the grant of certiorari as being a vindication of the district judge’s actions or a rebuke of the panel. In a properly functioning judiciary, district courts and court of appeals panels follow circuit precedents, the court of appeals en banc reconsiders them as necessary, and the Supreme Court resolves splits among the circuits. The fact that the Supreme Court is going to resolve a circuit split does not justify a district court in failing to promptly dispose of a case governed by on-point circuit precedent.
Here, via Findlaw, is the contrary Sixth Circuit opinion.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 27, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
In concluding that the appellate court didn’t “blast” the district judge for granting the COA, Kent overlooked the sentence immediately preceding the one he quoted in which the court said, “we are puzzled by the district court’s issuance of a COA in this case.” In my book, that’s blasting the district judge.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of this case, the cert grant is, contrary to Kent’s view, total vindication of the district judge’s decision to grant the COA. A COA should be granted if judges could reasonably differ as to the outcome. The fact that there was a clear circuit split at the time the judge granted the COA should have been more than enough to satisfy the COA standard and should have led the 11th Circuit to avoid taking a gratuitous shot at the district judge. The cert grant is really icing on the cake.
Comment by David Moran — March 27, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
puzzled = blasting? In your book, David, not in mine. I consider that to be a relatively mild comment.
Your view as to whether a COA depends on the issue being settled nationally as opposed to within the circuit is a possible one, but not the only one. The Court of Appeals established the contrary rule for the Eleventh Circuit, and that will remain the rule until it or the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Far from a “gratuitous shot,” that is what a Court of Appeals is supposed to do, establish a precedent for the District Courts to observe in the future.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 28, 2006 @ 12:20 am