Brandon Keller v. Chad Pringle
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15452
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2003 a North Dakota jury convicted Brandon Keller of conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in 2005.
- In 2013–2014 the North Dakota Supreme Court issued three decisions (Borner, Dominguez, Coppage) clarifying that state law requires intent to cause death for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder; extreme indifference is insufficient.
- Keller sought relief in state court after those decisions, arguing his attempted-murder conviction was based on an extreme-indifference theory; the state district court denied relief and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of his untimely post-conviction application.
- Keller filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 more than one year after his conviction became final but within one year of the state-law decisions; the district court dismissed it as untimely and denied equitable tolling.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statute-of-limitations and equitable-tolling questions de novo and considered whether the later state decisions constituted a "factual predicate" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal: the state-law decisions are not "facts" under § 2244(d)(1)(D), Keller failed to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling, and his federal claims did not properly challenge state post-conviction process or state-law determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keller) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2244(d)(1)(D) ("factual predicate") delayed start of AEDPA limitations | Borner/Dominguez/Coppage are the factual predicates; petition filed within one year | Those judicial decisions are legal developments, not factual predicates; limitations period had run | Held for State: decisions are not factual predicates; petition untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(D) |
| Whether § 2244(d)(1)(C) (new constitutional right) applies | N/A — Keller relied on (D), not (C) | (C) inapplicable; allowing (D) to cover legal changes would render (C) superfluous | Court noted (C) is distinct and (D) cannot be used to import legal changes as facts |
| Whether equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations is warranted | Keller argued he could not have raised claim earlier and acted timely once decisions issued | State argued Keller was not diligent and identified no extraordinary circumstances | Held for State: Keller failed both diligence and extraordinary-circumstance prongs; no equitable tolling |
| Whether federal habeas review may relitigate state court’s application of state law or completeness of state post-conviction process | Keller argued denial of timely relief violated due process/equal protection because statute barred remedy after law changed | State argued federal courts defer to state-law rulings and cannot relitigate state post-conviction procedures on § 2254 | Held for State: federal habeas may not reexamine state-law determinations or state post-conviction process; Keller’s federal claims fail on those bases |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (holding a state-court vacatur can be a "fact" under § 2255(f)(4))
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005) (judicial decisions are not facts subject to proof for limitations start)
- Lo v. Endicott, 506 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2007) (criticizing use of § 2244(d)(1)(D) to import legal developments as factual predicates)
- E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (interpretive discussion of AEDPA limitations subsections)
- Streu v. Dormire, 557 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for AEDPA timeliness questions)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas not the forum to reexamine state-law determinations)
- Kenley v. Bowersox, 228 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2000) (federal habeas is not the proper vehicle to challenge state post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Keller, 695 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2005) (Keller’s direct-appeal affirmance)
- State v. Borner, 836 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 2013) (North Dakota: intent to kill required for conspiracy to commit murder)
- Dominguez v. State, 840 N.W.2d 596 (N.D. 2013) (North Dakota: attempted murder cannot be premised on extreme indifference)
- Coppage v. State, 843 N.W.2d 291 (N.D. 2014) (post-conviction relief where attempted-murder conviction rested on extreme indifference)
- Keller v. State, 869 N.W.2d 424 (N.D. 2015) (state post-conviction denial as untimely)