Cummins v. Wilson
3:23-cv-00445
E.D. Va.Mar 11, 2025Background
- John Michael Cummins was civilly committed in Virginia as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) after criminal convictions and a probation violation.
- He did not appeal his 2021 recommitment order after an annual review that found him still a threat.
- Cummins challenged his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (for stipulating to SVP status, failing to advocate for release, not appealing) and arguing he no longer met the requirements for SVP commitment.
- Petitioner filed a state habeas petition, which was dismissed as procedurally barred as the claims should have been raised on direct appeal.
- In the federal habeas proceeding, the district court raised the issue of timeliness sua sponte and determined that the § 2254 petition was filed more than a year after his judgment became final, even allowing for extra time relating to discovery of counsel’s failure to appeal and statutory tolling for state court filings.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held (Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance (counsel’s stipulation to SVP status) | Counsel stipulated to SVP status against Cummins’s wishes | Not timely; claim barred by limitations | Untimely; claim barred |
| 2. Ineffective assistance (failure to advocate for release) | Counsel put up no defense for conditional release | Not timely; claim barred by limitations | Untimely; claim barred |
| 3. Ineffective assistance (failure to file appeal) | Counsel failed to file appeal as directed | Not timely; claim barred by limitations | Untimely, even with belated start date |
| 4. Substantive SVP commitment challenge | No longer meets SVP criteria; should be released | Could have been raised on direct appeal | Not cognizable via habeas; procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Slayton v. Parrigan, 215 Va. 27 (1974) (claims not raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from habeas review)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (finality for habeas purposes is date when time for direct review expires)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (due diligence requirement and prompt action in post-conviction filings)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence as gateway through procedural bars)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence can overcome habeas statute of limitations)