Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission
405 U.S. App. D.C. 93
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Davis был осужден в 1993 году по преступлениям, связанным с владением иDistribution powder and crack cocaine, и получил пожизненное заключение;
- За преступления в/crack cocaine была применена исходная база уровня 42, связанная с 15 кг crack cocaine;
- Конгресс и Комиссия по назначениям снизили дисбаланс наказания между порошкообразным и крикетическим кокаином через Amendments 706 и 750;
- АмA 706 и 750 применимы ретроактивно и позволяют тюремным заключенным запрашивать дискреционное сокращение наказания по 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);
- Davis подал иск по Declaratory Judgment Act и Bivens, требуя признать нарушение равной защиты за то, что Amendment 706/750 не охватывают его преступления;
- Дистрикт-к court отменил иск по Declaratory Judgment Act как не имеющий юрисдикции, и признал Bivens «патентно несущественным»;
- Апелляционный суд reverse и признает право на подачу иска в форме декларативного иска, а не через habeas, и направляет на дальнейшее разбирательство.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis must pursue equal-protection challenge via habeas corpus | Davis argues broad habeas-channeling rule applies. | Davis's claims belong in habeas, not in declaratory/bivens actions. | Habeas not required; declaratory relief viable if not necessarily shortening confinement. |
| Whether Davis’s equal-protection challenge can proceed outside habeas | Davis seeks non-habeas relief for equal protection. | Amendments 706/750 do not apply to his offense. | His equal-protection challenge may proceed via non-habeas avenues. |
| Whether the district court properly rejected the Bivens claim as insubstantial | Davis asserts a valid Bivens action against federal officers. | Bivens claim was insubstantial and improperly pleaded. | District court had jurisdiction to address merits; Bivens pleading flaws can be remedied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973) (habeas channeling for core confinement claims)
- Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (federal prisoners may channel probabilistic claims into habeas or other actions depending on scope)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (claims that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction must be in habeas)
- Balisok v. Dow, 520 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1997) (same principle as Heck for state prisoners)
- Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (extends habeas-channeling considerations to federal prisoners under certain facts)
- Razzoli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (broader habeas-channeling rule for federal prisoners; probabilistic impact issued)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005) (probabilistic claims not core of habeas; may pursue non-habeas relief)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2011) (habeas may not be sole remedy for probabilistic relief)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1974) (grounds for habeas relief are the same for state and federal prisoners)