Jacob Pratt v. Timothy Filson
705 F. App'x 523
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pratt filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 outside the one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1).
- He asserted the actual innocence “gateway” exception (McQuiggin) to overcome untimeliness, relying on newly presented evidence of innocence.
- Pratt was convicted of first-degree kidnapping (alleged purpose: robbery) and attempted murder related to holding and threatening a victim during a robbery; facts include robbery participation, knife-point restraint, and forcing the victim onto a tree over the Truckee River.
- Pratt offered legal argument against the kidnapping conviction and his own testimony denying intent or the physical act underlying the attempted murder conviction; he also referenced the presentence report (PSR).
- The district court dismissed the petition as untimely and denied appointment of counsel; Pratt appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pratt can invoke the actual-innocence gateway to excuse untimeliness | Pratt says new evidence (his testimony and PSR) shows actual innocence | State says evidence is insufficient; petition is untimely | Denied — evidence is insufficient to meet McQuiggin/Schlup standard |
| What counts as “new evidence” for the Schlup standard | Pratt assumes "newly presented" evidence suffices | State argues only "newly discovered" evidence qualifies (relying on O’Connor concurrence) | Court assumes without deciding plurality standard; rules Pratt fails even under that standard |
| Sufficiency of Pratt’s proffer for each conviction (kidnapping and attempted murder) | Pratt contends facts/legal arguments show no kidnapping; his testimony negates intent to kill | State points to victim’s account and incriminating facts (robbery, knife, threats, conduct) | Kidnapping: no new evidence (legal argument only) — gateway closed; Attempted murder: petitioner testimony is mere credibility dispute and insufficient |
| Denial of appointment of counsel | Pratt sought counsel to litigate habeas claim | State defended denial | No abuse of discretion in denying counsel; Pratt didn’t show necessity to avoid due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (Sup. Ct.) (actual-innocence gateway can excuse AEDPA time bar)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for actual-innocence gateway requires showing that no reasonable juror would have convicted in light of new evidence)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretation rule for fractured Supreme Court opinions)
- Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for timeliness dismissal)
- Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.) (discussion of standard of review for actual-innocence gateway claims)
- Griffin v. Johnson, 350 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.) (holding that actual innocence requires "newly presented" evidence)
- United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. en banc) (reasoning-based approach to interpreting fragmented decisions)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. en banc) (describing Schlup gateway as “exacting” and for extraordinary cases)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Sup. Ct.) (characterizing actual-innocence gateway as for extraordinary cases)
- Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir.) (standard for appointment of counsel in habeas cases)