674 F.Supp.3d 1040
E.D. Okla.2023Background
- Petitioner Clifford W. Eagle pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in Haskell County in 2014 and was sentenced to 45 years.
- Eagle filed post-plea motions (2014) and a post-conviction application (2016) raising sentencing and counsel-abandonment claims; those were denied and affirmed by the OCCA.
- After Murphy/McGirt developments, Eagle filed a state habeas (2017) and later a second post-conviction application (Oct. 2017) asserting he is Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country; the Haskell County court denied relief (Aug. 13, 2021) citing Matloff.
- Eagle attempted to appeal the 2021 denial to the OCCA in 2022, but the OCCA dismissed for failure to timely file the petition in error, advising he could seek an appeal out of time in the district court.
- Eagle filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting lack of state jurisdiction (McGirt-based). The respondent moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust and as time-barred.
- The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies for McGirt-based jurisdiction claim | Eagle contends subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised collaterally | Bridges contends Eagle failed to present the claim to the highest state court and has an available remedy (appeal out of time) | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; Eagle must pursue state remedy (appeal out of time) |
| Whether McGirt or "jurisdictional" status excuses exhaustion | McGirt-based jurisdictional defect is not subject to waiver and need not follow § 2254 exhaustion | No statutory or doctrinal exception to exhaustion for jurisdictional claims; McGirt/Matloff do not excuse exhaustion | Rejected; exhaustion required even for McGirt-based jurisdictional claims |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Eagle did not make a showing that reasonable jurists would contest the procedural ruling | Bridges argued procedural failure and no substantial constitutional showing | COA denied; petitioner failed to make the requisite substantial showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (exhaustion and procedural default principles)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal comity; dismiss unexhausted claims so state courts can consider them)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (requirement to give state courts one full opportunity to address federal claims)
- Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1994) (exhaustion satisfied only when highest state court had opportunity to rule)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holding regarding reservation of Indian Country, underlying jurisdictional theory)
- Matloff v. Wallace, 497 P.3d 686 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (OCCA rule limiting McGirt’s retroactive application on collateral review)
- Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) (AEDPA exhaustion requirement reaffirmed)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (certificate of appealability standard)