Bailey v. Ebbert
218 F. Supp. 3d 60
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Petitioner was convicted of rape in Superior Court in 1994 and sentenced to 15–45 years; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed on April 14, 1997 and issued mandate February 25, 1998.
- Petitioner filed a D.C. Code § 23-110 post-conviction motion on March 13, 1998; the Superior Court denied it September 30, 1999, and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed April 20, 2001.
- Petitioner did not file a certiorari petition; the federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was received October 16, 2015.
- The district court treated the petition as governed by AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and found the limitation tolled while the § 23-110 motion was pending (March 13, 1998–April 20, 2001).
- The government argued, and the court found, that the one-year limitations period expired on April 30, 2002, making the 2015 filing untimely absent equitable tolling or an actual-innocence gateway.
- Petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as his cognizable § 2254 claim and alternatively invoked equitable tolling and the miscarriage-of-justice (actual innocence) exception.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA § 2244(d) | Petition is timely because state § 23‑110 tolling paused limitations until April 2001 | Limitations resumed after April 2001 and expired April 30, 2002; 2015 filing is untimely | Court: Petition untimely — limitations period expired in 2002 and 2015 filing is time-barred |
| Equitable tolling availability | Petitioner argued diligence and obstacles justify tolling | Government: no extraordinary circumstances shown to warrant equitable tolling | Court: Equitable tolling not warranted — petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances |
| Miscarriage-of-justice (actual-innocence) gateway | Petitioner claims actual innocence to overcome time bar | Government: no new reliable evidence shows innocence | Court: No new evidence presented that would make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict; gateway not satisfied |
| Federal jurisdiction over actual-innocence claim | Petitioner seeks review in federal court | Government: petitioner may raise innocence in D.C. Superior Court under § 23‑110; availability of state remedy limits federal review | Court: Federal court lacks jurisdiction to entertain actual-innocence claim because adequate state remedy is available |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir.) (identifying ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim cognizable under § 2254)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (tolling while state post-conviction application is pending)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (when conviction becomes final for collateral-review purposes)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard: diligence plus extraordinary circumstances)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural bars)