DeLong v. Dickhaut
715 F.3d 382
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- DeLong was convicted by a Massachusetts jury on two indictments for unarmed robbery and sentenced to concurrent 15–20 years.
- He moved for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and later asserted newly discovered evidence (surveillance tape and photos) warranting a new trial or evidentiary hearing.
- Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the convictions but ordered an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial; Appeals Court affirmed.
- DeLong sought further state appellate review; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied relief.
- DeLong then filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254; the district court dismissed as mixed (exhausted and unexhausted) claims.]
- NOTE: The district court’s order explicitly stated dismissal under Lundy; the court later denied a COA and remanded for reviewing the mixed-petition issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and scope of notice of appeal | DeLong timely appealed the district court’s dismissal | Dickhaut contends appeal improperly targets only the extension-denial order | Timely notice evidenced intent to appeal the dismissal and extension denial. |
| District court’s handling of mixed petitions under Lundy | DeLong argues district court should allow deletion of unexhausted claims | District court could dismiss or stay; Lundy governs mixed petitions | District court’s dismissal was an abuse of discretion; remanded for reconsideration with basis for any dismissal. |
| Appropriate appellate remedy and stay/abeyance considerations | Petitioner should be allowed to exhaust or proceed with exhausted claims | Stay and abeyance or dismissal under Lundy possible | Court vacated and remanded to clarify basis for dismissal and potential stay/abeyance analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Cunningham? (see Lundy), 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (total exhaustion requirement; dismiss mixed petitions without prejudice)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay and abeyance only for good cause; avoid prejudice when unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious)
- Clements v. Maloney, 485 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2007) (best practice: allow deletion of unexhausted claims; avoid outright dismissal)
- Neverson v. Farquharson, 366 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2004) (advocates wiser practice for handling mixed petitions)
- Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Díaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (liberal interpretation of notice of appeal to ascertain intent)
- United States v. Van, 87 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (need to identify basis for district court’s ruling to permit review)
- United States v. Medina, 167 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1999) (remand where district court’s order lacks explanation)
- Campiti v. Matesanz, 333 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se notices; intent to appeal must be evident)