James Head v. Eric Wilson
416 U.S. App. D.C. 441
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- James M. Head was convicted in D.C. Superior Court in 1980 of multiple violent crimes; he later pursued multiple collateral challenges under D.C. Code § 23-110 and other local procedures.
- Head raised an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel (IAAC) claim in D.C. collateral proceedings (including a motion to recall the mandate) and again in § 23-110 motions; he filed several such motions between 1982 and 2011.
- AEDPA created a one-year federal habeas filing deadline (with a 1996 effective date); for convictions final before AEDPA, the filing deadline was April 24, 1997. Head did not file federal habeas until April 16, 2012.
- In 2009 this court decided Williams v. Martinez, holding that § 23-110(g)’s safety valve permits federal habeas jurisdiction for IAAC claims that the Superior Court cannot entertain under § 23-110(a). Head argued Williams removed an impediment and tolled AEDPA’s limitation period.
- The district court dismissed Head’s 2012 habeas petition as untimely; the D.C. Circuit granted a COA limited to the timeliness question and affirmed, holding pre-Williams law did not prevent Head from timely filing and neither statutory nor equitable tolling applied.
Issues
| Issue | Head's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams created an "impediment created by State action" that tolled AEDPA under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) | Williams removed a legal impediment that previously barred IAAC claims from federal habeas, so AEDPA’s clock was tolled until Williams became final | Pre-Williams case law did not actually prevent filing in federal court; any uncertainty was from federal (not state) courts and thus not a state-created impediment | Rejected: pre-Williams jurisprudence did not create a state-action impediment; statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(1)(B) does not apply |
| Whether Williams or intervening precedent warrants equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year period | Williams was an extraordinary, intervening change that made filing possible only after it became final, justifying equitable tolling | Equitable tolling requires an extraordinary circumstance beyond petitioner’s control; unfavorable precedent or uncertainty alone is insufficient | Rejected: unfavorable or unsettled precedent is not an extraordinary circumstance; equitable tolling unavailable |
| Whether prior D.C. appellate practice (motions to recall mandate vs. § 23-110) made federal forum unavailable | Head contends D.C. practice effectively foreclosed federal relief until Williams clarified jurisdiction | Court reasons prior case law had assumed federal jurisdiction for IAAC claims; nothing barred a timely federal filing | Rejected: earlier D.C. and federal decisions implicitly allowed federal filing; Williams made explicit what already existed |
| Whether Collier (unpublished) shows IAAC claims were barred pre-Williams | Head cites Collier as evidence federal forum was closed | Court notes Collier is unpublished, non-precedential, decided after AEDPA’s grace period, and in any event did not settle the jurisdictional question | Rejected: Collier is non-precedential and post-dates the AEDPA grace period; it does not establish an impediment |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (held § 23-110(g) permits federal habeas jurisdiction for IAAC claims the Superior Court cannot entertain)
- Streater v. Jackson, 691 F.2d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (earlier D.C. Cir. decision reflecting assumption that federal courts could hear IAAC claims)
- Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (1977) (upheld § 23-110’s vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in D.C. Superior Court, subject to § 23-110(g) safety valve)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling of AEDPA requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 764 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling requires circumstances beyond petitioner’s control; garden-variety mistakes insufficient)
- Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (unfavorable precedent or futility does not, by itself, justify equitable tolling)