Floyd Perkins v. G. McQuiggin
670 F.3d 665
6th Cir.2012Background
- Perkins was convicted of fatally stabbing Henderson in Michigan (1993); conviction final by 1997; AEDPA deadline May 5, 1998; he did not file by then.
- Perkins filed a 2008 habeas petition raising sufficiency of evidence, jury instruction, trial procedure, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective counsel claims.
- He relied on AEDPA's new-evidence tolling (D(1)(D)) based on affidavits suggesting innocence, last dated 2002; new-evidence deadline expired July 16, 2003.
- The district court denied tolling, finding the new evidence not of a type supporting actual innocence and that Perkins failed to show reasonable diligence under Pace.
- The certificate of appealability limited the appeal to whether reasonable diligence is a prerequisite for equitable tolling based on actual innocence, a question the panel addressed by recognizing a credible actual-innocence claim may toll the limitations period.
- The opinion reverses and remands to consider Perkins’s credible claim of actual innocence consistent with the holding that such claims may toll AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether credible actual innocence tolls AEDPA’s one-year limit. | Perkins argues actual innocence tolls the limit without required diligence. | Warden argues Holland overrides Souter, requiring diligence for tolling. | Actual innocence tolling remains valid; no diligence prerequisite required. |
| Whether Souter remains viable after Holland regarding the gateway to merits. | Perkins relies on Souter’s gateway for innocence without diligence. | Holland undermines Souter’s gateway. | Souter remains viable; Holland does not overrule it. |
| Whether Holland mandates a reasonable-diligence requirement for actual innocence tolling. | No diligence bar for actual-innocence tolling. | Holland requires diligence when tolling is based on innocence. | Adopts view that all credible actual-innocence claims are treated similarly, not subject to a separate diligence prerequisite. |
| Whether treating actual innocence the same across default theories is required. | Actual innocence should excuse timeliness regardless of default. | Different defaults justify different tolling rules. | Consistent with prior doctrine, all credible actual-innocence claims are treated the same for tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577 (6th Cir.2005) (gateway to merits for time-barred petitions based on actual innocence)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (actual innocence gateway; diligence and extraordinary circumstances framework)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court, 2005) (diligence required for equitable tolling when no innocence claim)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence standard; new reliable evidence to excuse default)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court, 2006) (gateway relief for procedurally defaulted claims based on actual innocence)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1992) (comments on fundamental fairness and exceptions to unreviewability)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court, 1991) (habeas review and exceptions to default to prevent miscarriage of justice)
- Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court, 1989) (habeas review for defaulted claims in extraordinary cases)