Marcus Robinson v. Edward Thomas
855 F.3d 278
4th Cir.2017Background
- Marcus Robinson and Tilmon Golphin, both previously sentenced to death, obtained post-conviction relief under North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act (RJA), which led trial courts to vacate their death sentences and resentence them to life without parole.
- North Carolina Supreme Court vacated those trial-court RJA orders and remanded for further RJA proceedings; mandates issued in January 2016.
- While remanded RJA proceedings were pending, the defendants filed federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to enjoin further state RJA proceedings on Double Jeopardy Clause grounds.
- District courts dismissed the § 2241 petitions, principally on Younger abstention grounds and alternatively for failure to exhaust state remedies.
- The Fourth Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed, holding exhaustion was satisfied but Younger required abstention because defendants had adequate state-court avenues to raise their double jeopardy claims and had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
- Court declined to apply Gilliam broadly; relied on its precedents in Nivens I and II to require state-court exhaustion and refusal to intervene absent immediate, irreparable constitutional harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners exhausted state remedies before filing federal habeas | Petitioners argued they fairly presented Double Jeopardy claims to NC courts via merits briefs and certiorari filings | State argued claims weren’t ripe until NC Supreme Court remand and plaintiffs failed to exhaust | Held: Exhaustion satisfied; claims were fairly presented and ripe upon the State’s appeal of the trial-court RJA orders |
| Whether federal courts must abstain under Younger from enjoining ongoing state RJA proceedings | Petitioners sought federal intervention to prevent a second RJA proceeding as a Double Jeopardy violation | State argued Younger abstention applies because ongoing state proceedings implicate substantial state interests and allow constitutional challenges | Held: Younger abstention proper; all Middlesex factors met and no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether a colorable double jeopardy claim (per Gilliam) automatically negates Younger abstention | Petitioners argued Gilliam creates a categorical exception when a colorable double jeopardy claim exists | State relied on Nivens line: Gilliam limited; when pretrial state remedies can prevent harm, Younger applies | Held: Gilliam is narrow; a colorable double jeopardy claim alone does not automatically overcome Younger (Nivens-control) |
| Whether the defendants showed extraordinary circumstances (immediate, irreparable harm) to bypass Younger | Petitioners argued RJA proceedings are functionally sentencing trials (invoking Bullington) so irreparable harm was likely | State argued differences in RJA procedure and burden, plus availability of state remedies, mean no immediate irreparable harm | Held: No extraordinary circumstances shown; procedural differences and available state relief foreclose federal intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts normally must not enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings)
- Middlesex City Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (three-factor test for Younger abstention)
- Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881 (4th Cir. 1996) (double jeopardy claim may justify federal intervention in narrow circumstances)
- Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2003) (Younger abstention appropriate where state procedures allow pretrial resolution of double jeopardy claims)
- Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2006) (reaffirming limited scope of Gilliam and propriety of Younger abstention)
- Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981) (Double Jeopardy may bar resentencing to death after an effective acquittal at sentencing)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) (Double Jeopardy protections and timing of federal review)
- Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (prosecution appeal from an acquittal implicates double jeopardy ripeness)
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (requirement to fairly present federal claim to state courts for exhaustion)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires invoking one full round of state appellate review)