Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate
734 F.3d 995
9th Cir.2013Background
- Stewart was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in 1996 and sentenced to two life terms plus seven years in California.
- Lee, Stewart's co-defendant, had his convictions vacated in 2000 based on evidence suggesting Lee was not the shooter.
- Stewart pursued state post-conviction relief, filing a state habeas petition in May 2002 asserting newly discovered evidence implicated another driver.
- Stewart filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 17, 2005, raising claims including actual innocence and newly discovered evidence.
- The district court reviewed tolling under AEDPA and Schlup, ultimately dismissing Stewart’s amended petition as untimely and denying relief; Stewart appeals the timeliness, actual innocence gateway, and related issues.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding the petition time-barred and not passing through the Schlup actual-innocence gateway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart is entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). | Stewart argues a 100-day delay between state petitions was reasonable. | The delay was unreasonable under California’s reasonable-time standard; no tolling applies. | Timeliness affirmed; no statutory tolling for the 100-day gap. |
| Whether Stewart satisfies the Schlup actual-innocence gateway. | New declarations and evidence undermine the Parish brothers’ identifications and implicate another driver. | Even with new evidence, there is sufficient evidence independent of identification to sustain conviction. | Schlup gateway not satisfied; no passage to merits. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the Schlup claim. | Credibility questions regarding new witnesses require an evidentiary hearing. | The record shows the new evidence does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. | No abuse of discretion; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Whether the Amended § 2254 Petition adequately stated a federal claim. | Amendment clarified federal bases of claims. | Timeliness bars consideration regardless of amendment. | Petition time-barred; state court rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway standard; demanding but not requiring certainty)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (Schlup holistic review; deference to district court’s factual assessment cautionary)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (actual innocence gateway; rarity of success)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (state post-conviction tolling framework; reasonable-time analysis for California)