Liban A. Jama v. Harold W. Clarke
707 F. App'x 155
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Liban A. Jama filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition challenging his state convictions.
- The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
- Jama appealed; a certificate of appealability (COA) is required to appeal the dismissal.
- The Fourth Circuit found the district court’s procedural ruling (failure to exhaust) debatable because a state procedural rule likely would bar relief.
- The court independently concluded the petition is nonetheless barred by the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations and gave Jama an opportunity to justify timeliness or equitable tolling.
- Jama argued actual innocence based on a recent Virginia Supreme Court decision, but the court held that decision did not constitute the “new evidence” required to excuse the untimely filing; the petition remained time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COA should issue for dismissal for failure to exhaust | Jama argued dismissal was improper and sought review | Respondent defended district court’s dismissal for non-exhaustion | Court found procedural ruling debatable but denied COA based on alternative ground (timeliness) |
| Whether the § 2254 petition is time-barred under AEDPA | Jama contended petition should not be barred; sought tolling or equitable exceptions | Respondent argued petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) | Petition is barred by AEDPA one-year limitations period |
| Whether actual innocence excuse applies to overcome untimeliness | Jama asserted actual innocence, relying on a recent Virginia Supreme Court decision | Respondent argued Jama offered no new evidence of actual innocence | Court held Jama did not present new evidence sufficient to invoke McQuiggin actual-innocence gateway |
| Whether the Virginia decision cited by Jama counts as new evidence | Jama treated that decision as new evidence of innocence | Respondent maintained it is not new evidence under Schlup standard | Court held the decision is not new evidence and does not meet Schlup requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for COA; procedural vs. merits denials)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA on merits denials)
- Hedrick v. True, 443 F.3d 342 (state procedural default may bar relief)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual-innocence gateway to overcome AEDPA time bar)
- Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (notice and opportunity to explain timeliness/equitable tolling)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (definition of "new evidence" for actual innocence gateway)