Bonilla v. Wainwright
798 F. Supp. 2d 155
D.D.C.2011Background
- Bonilla, a DC Superior Court convict, seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241 to vacate his conviction and sentence, with Warden Wainwright moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Arrested March 27, 1998, charged with second-degree murder while armed; after trial, convicted of first-degree murder while armed (premeditated) and conspiracy; sentenced to 30 years to life and 20 to 60 months, respectively, to run concurrently.
- Filed a motion for new trial on November 5, 2001 alleging newly discovered evidence of coerced witness Aleman; evidentiary hearing held; motion denied October 10, 2002.
- On appeal (2005), government disclosed exculpatory information about Rosa Garcia; Bonilla pursued a section 23-110 motion; Superior Court denied September 1, 2006; Court of Appeals affirmed; issues included deficient trial instructions and suppression of evidence but not prejudice.
- DC Court of Appeals remanded on March 26, 2009 for deficient aiding-and-abetting instructions yet affirmed sufficient evidence of guilt; resentenced December 11, 2009 to 18 years to life for second-degree murder and 20 to 60 months for conspiracy; petition for habeas relief filed February 16, 2010.
- The court treats Bonilla as a state prisoner under 2254 and dismisses for lack of jurisdiction because DC’s §23-110 remedy was not shown to be inadequate or ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is properly treated as a state prisoner under 2254. | Bonilla argues §2241 is proper relief for federal prisoners challenging detention. | Warden argues DC prisoner status requires §2254 remedy; petition should be treated as state-prison habeas under §2254. | Petition construed under §2254; Bonilla is a state prisoner for habeas purposes. |
| Whether §23-110 provides an adequate and effective remedy. | Bonilla contends §23-110 is inadequate to test the legality of his detention. | Respondent contends §23-110 remains a sufficient remedy even if the relief sought is denied. | No substantial showing that §23-110 is inadequate or ineffective; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether the jurisdictional bar can be overcome under Schlup due to actual innocence. | Bonilla asserts new evidence shows he is probably innocent and thus gateways relief. | Government argues no new reliable evidence establishing actual innocence; guilt supported by trial record. | Petition fails to show actual innocence by new reliable evidence; Schlup not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Smith, 377 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2005) (DC prisoners treated as state prisoners for habeas purposes)
- Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (1997 internal rule about adequacy of §23-110 remedy)
- Milhouse v. Levi, 548 F.2d 357 (D.C.Cir. 1976) (DC court is a state court for habeas purposes)
- In re Smith, 285 F.3d 6 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (ineffecacy vs. inadequacy of local remedy standard)
- Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1977) (§23-110 requires inadequacy of local remedy before federal review)
- Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (local remedy inadequacy determines federal jurisdiction)
- Plummer v. Fenty, 321 F. App'x 7 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (23-110 remedy not inadequate simply because relief denied)
- Williams v. Apker, 774 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2011) (treating state-prisoners as state-prison for habeas)