Capozzi v. United States
768 F.3d 32
1st Cir.2014Background
- Derek Capozzi filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction, including a Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance/self-representation claim and a Brady claim based on newly discovered evidence.
- The district court found the Sixth Amendment claim time-barred under the one-year limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) and rejected the Brady claim on the merits but granted a COA on the Brady claim.
- Capozzi sought an expanded certificate of appealability (COA) from this Court as to his Sixth Amendment claim; the panel previously denied the expanded COA as to that claim.
- Capozzi argued his untimely Sixth Amendment claim was nonetheless timely because it was included in a § 2255 filing that also asserted a timely Brady claim.
- The Court considered whether § 2255's one-year limitation applies to a § 2255 petition as a whole or on a claim-by-claim basis.
- The Court held that the limitation period must be applied claim-by-claim, so Capozzi’s Sixth Amendment claim is untimely and no reasonable jurist could find otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(f) limitations run claim-by-claim or petition-wide | Capozzi: a § 2255 petition containing at least one timely claim makes all claims timely | United States: § 2255(f) applies to each claim individually; untimely claims remain untimely | Applied claim-by-claim; Sixth Amendment claim untimely |
| Whether Capozzi’s Sixth Amendment claim was timely | Capozzi: timely because included with Brady claim that arose later | United States: Sixth Amendment claim governed by § 2255(f)(1) and expired Oct. 2010 | Claim is time-barred |
| Whether an expanded COA should issue for the Sixth Amendment claim | Capozzi: reasonable jurists could debate timeliness because petition included a timely claim | United States: no substantial showing of debatable timeliness | COA denied; no reasonable jurist could disagree |
| Whether any other § 2255(f) subsection saves the Sixth Amendment claim | Capozzi: implicitly relied on other timeliness doctrines by bundling claims | United States: no applicable § 2255(f) subsection to save Sixth Amendment claim | No other subsection applies; claim remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA denial)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA review and reasonable jurist test)
- Zack v. Tucker, 704 F.3d 917 (Eleventh Circuit en banc applying claim-by-claim approach)
- Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182 (Tenth Circuit applying claim-by-claim timeliness)
- Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164 (Ninth Circuit applying claim-by-claim timeliness)
- Souliotes v. Evans, 622 F.3d 1173 (Ninth Circuit discussing timeliness analysis)
- Bachman v. Bagley, 487 F.3d 979 (Sixth Circuit applying claim-by-claim rule)
- Fielder v. Varner, 379 F.3d 113 (Third Circuit applying claim-by-claim rule)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court on relation-back and habeas pleading limits)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court on tolling and AEDPA limitations)