In Re Carlyle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153
8th Cir.2011Background
- Carlyle, a CJA-appointed attorney, sought reimbursement for clemency-related work on Missouri death-row inmate Clay.
- The district court initially ex parte pre-approved CLE-M grant with rate cap ($125/hour), a $3,500 total cap, and limits on extra services.
- In 2010 the district court increased rates and allowed outside-record clemency arguments, but kept a $7,000 cap and denied lifting the cap in full.
- Clay’s clemency proceedings delayed execution; Governor commuted Clay to life in prison in January 2011, moot-ing the direct habeas appeal.
- Carlyle submitted a final voucher seeking $37,876.80; the district court ultimately paid the capped $7,000.
- The Eighth Circuit dismissed Carlyle’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding CJA voucher denials/reductions are not appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chief judge has jurisdiction to review a district court's CJA voucher reduction | Carlyle seeks appellate review of reduced voucher amounts. | The district court's voucher determinations are administrative, not judicial, and not subject to appellate review by the chief judge. | No jurisdiction to review; not appealable |
| Whether the CJA authorizes appellate review of reduced or denied CJA vouchers | CJA procedures allow review of excess or improvident awards. | CJA review is limited to excess or waivable limits; reductions within limits are non-appealable. | Not reviewable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 992 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1993) (counseling and clemency standards cited for §3599 context)
- United States v. Johnson, 391 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2004) (CJA voucher review limitations discussed)
- Turner, United States v., 584 F.2d 1389 (2d Cir. 1978) (district court discretion in CJA awards; non-reviewable on appeal)
- Smith v. United States, 633 F.2d 739 (7th Cir. 1980) (CJA fee determinations not subject to routine appellate review)