Michael Duane Zack, III v. Kenneth S. Tucker
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 714
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Zack challenged district court’s denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
- Court overruns Walker v. Crosby to adopt claim-by-claim timeliness under §2244(d)(1).
- Statutory framework: §2244(d)(1) imposes a one-year limit with four possible triggering dates.
- Walker held a single limitations period for the application as a whole, not per-claim; Zack argued Atkins and other claims remained timely.
- Court finds text/structure, Supreme Court precedent, and Congressional intent support a claim-by-claim approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2244(d)(1) is a single deadline or claim-by-claim | Zack—Walker applies; timely Atkins lifts timely other claims | State—statute applies to the whole application | Claim-by-claim is required |
| Whether Walker misreads the statute and should be overruled | Walker misreads dates; timing tied to each claim | Walker preserves finality and efficiency | Walker overruled; claim-by-claim preferred |
| Does Congress’ intent favor finality over revival of untimely claims | Resurrection of untimely claims would undermine finality | AEDPA finality is paramount; avoid loopholes | Aggressive finality favored; Walker rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Crosby, 341 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003) (held AEDPA §2244(d)(1) applies to the application as a whole)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (claim-by-claim consideration in tolling contexts)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (limits revival of timely claims by new rules)
- Fielder v. Varner, 379 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2004) (advocated claim-by-claim interpretation)
- Third Circuit on multiple triggers, Fielder cited, 379 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2004) (supports claim-by-claim approach)
- Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2012) (rejects Walker interpretation)
- Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (applies claim-by-claim timeliness)
- Bachman v. Bagley, 487 F.3d 979 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejects Walker interpretation)
- Day v. Crosby, 391 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2004) (discusses AEDPA finality)