Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8353
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Stewart was convicted in California state court of two counts of attempted murder (1996) and sentenced to two life terms plus seven years; his co-defendant Lee’s convictions were later vacated based on post-trial evidence implicating others.
- In May 2002 Stewart filed a state habeas petition alleging newly discovered evidence (declarations from witnesses) showing Darnell Jackson — not Stewart — drove the car from which the shots were fired; the Superior Court and Court of Appeal denied relief; the California Supreme Court summarily denied Stewart’s petition in August 2004.
- Stewart filed a federal § 2254 petition in May 2005. The district court found the federal petition untimely under AEDPA and that Stewart was not entitled to statutory tolling during a 100-day gap between his state petitions (May 23–Aug 31, 2003).
- The district court also rejected Stewart’s claim of actual innocence under the Schlup gateway, after in-camera review of prosecution files and considering new declarations, and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) the 100-day gap was unreasonable under California’s “reasonable time” benchmark (30–60 days) absent adequate excuse, so § 2244(d)(2) tolling did not cover that interval; (2) Stewart failed Schlup’s demanding actual-innocence standard; (3) denial of an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart’s § 2254 petition was timely / whether state collateral petitions tolled AEDPA during a 100-day gap | Stewart: California permits such gaps (and he had good cause — prison emergency/transfer) so the state petition was “pending” and tolled AEDPA | State: 100-day delay was unreasonable under California’s “reasonable time” standard; no good cause shown, so § 2244(d)(2) tolling did not apply | Court: 100-day gap unreasonable; Stewart failed to show good cause; no statutory tolling for that interval and federal petition untimely |
| Whether Stewart satisfied Schlup actual-innocence gateway to excuse timeliness bar | Stewart: new declarations and evidence (Daniels, Vinson, Johnson, League, Lee) undermine victims’ IDs and point to Jackson as driver, so no juror would convict | State: new evidence is equivocal/contradicted by trial evidence (eyewitness ID, car links, GSR, conduct) and does not reliably undermine verdict | Court: Schlup is demanding; on cumulative review new evidence insufficient to undermine confidence in verdict; Schlup not met |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on Schlup claim | Stewart: credibility disputes require live testimony/cross-examination; hearing necessary to resolve Schlup | State: district court permissibly evaluated the cold record and assumed affidavits credible but found even credited evidence insufficient; hearing unnecessary | Court: no abuse of discretion; even crediting new evidence, petitioner would not meet Schlup, so hearing not required |
| Whether petitioner adequately pleaded federal constitutional claims | Stewart: amended petition clarified federal basis | State: claims were not federal in nature or insufficiently pleaded | Court: did not reach merits because petition time-barred; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway standard for reviewing otherwise barred habeas claims)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (Schlup gateway can excuse AEDPA’s statute of limitations in extraordinary cases)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (state habeas pending rule and tolling principle under § 2244(d)(2))
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (California’s collateral-review ‘reasonable time’ standard — federal courts must decide whether a delay is reasonable)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (assessing Schlup by reviewing the impact of new evidence on reasonable jurors)
- Velasquez v. Kirkland, 639 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying 30–60 day benchmark to California ‘reasonable time’ analysis)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (holistic Schlup inquiry; deference to trial-court factual findings limited when reviewing entire supplemented record)