Luke v. United States
942 F. Supp. 2d 154
D.D.C.2013Background
- Luke, a former Hospital Corpsman Second Class, sues the United States challenging a court-martial conviction affirmed by the CAAF.
- Plaintiff alleges CAAF relied on Mills’s discredited DNA evidence and failed to review an issue previously assigned for review.
- The government’s trial included Mills’s serology and Chase’s DNA analysis; later investigations questioned Mills’s reliability.
- CAAF remanded to Dubay hearings; NMCCA and CAAF considered newly discovered evidence standards and the destruction of evidence.
- Plaintiff seeks collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing the conviction violated due process and Mesarosh standards; court grants dismissal for lack of relief.
- Court ultimately concludes the complaint fails to show voidness or failure to conform to Supreme Court standards; claims are dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mesarosh-based claims are reviewable | Luke argues CAAF’s affirmation violated Mesarosh. | Luke’s constitutional claim is waived or not cognizable under standard. | First cause of action dismissed; not void and conforming. |
| Whether CAAF denied full and fair consideration in the abortion evidence issue | Luke contends CAAF failed to review an issue previously granted. | CAAF had discretion; not obligated to revisit identical issue. | Second cause of action dismissed; full and fair consideration shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953) (habeas-like review limited, must show fair consideration)
- Kauffman v. Secretary of the Air Force, 415 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (affords deferential review of military findings on constitutional claims)
- Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975) (collateral relief barred unless judgment void; voidness standard)
- New v. Rumsfeld (United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld), 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (non-custodial collateral attack under §1331; two-review framework)
- Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discusses full-and-fair consideration standard and discretionary review)