Peoples v. Schultz
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96261
D.D.C.2011Background
- Peoples was convicted in DC Superior Court in Oct 1989 of arson, murder and related offenses; sentenced to 73 years to life in Feb 1990; conviction affirmed by the DC Court of Appeals in Apr 1994 (merger issue later remanded).
- He pursued multiple collateral challenges: first §23-110 petition in Nov 2000 denied as procedurally barred; a second §23-110 petition in Dec 2003 while in DC custody; DC Court of Appeals upheld Judge Johnson’s rulings in Oct 2008; he also filed a federal §2241 petition in SC in Dec 2002 that was dismissed.
- Instant petition (April 2010) sought review of detention on grounds including actual innocence, defective indictment, erroneous jury instructions, and due-process issues during jury deliberations.
- Respondent moved to dismiss on (i) §23-110 adequacy/ineffectiveness and (ii) AEDPA timeliness; the court granted the motion on both grounds.
- The court treated the petition as a §2254 habeas petition (not §2241) and held AEDPA’s one-year clock had run, with no basis for equitable tolling; §2241 relief would have jurisdictional and respondent-identity issues making §2241 inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §23-110 was inadequate or ineffective to test detention. | Peoples argues local remedy is inadequate/ineffective. | Court found §23-110 adequate; prior petitions analyzed; no inadequacy shown. | No; §23-110 is adequate and effective. |
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA §2254. | Petition should be considered timely under tolling theory. | AEDPA clock expired; no equitable tolling shown. | Untimely under AEDPA; tolling not warranted. |
| Whether §2241 could be used instead of §2254. | Petition could proceed under §2241. | §2241 improper; §2254 exclusive for state convictions. | Not permitted; petition treated as §2254. |
| Whether the petition would otherwise be within federal habeas jurisdiction. | Challenging underlying conviction and due process. | Jurisdictional and statutory limits foreclose relief. | Petition dismissal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (inefficacy of remedy governs adequacy of §23-110)
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (sect. 23-110 exclusive jurisdiction; collateral review limits)
- Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1977) (parallel to postconviction procedures; legislative intent explained)
- Cicero, 214 F.3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (one-year grace period after AEDPA enacted for pre-AEDPA final convictions)
- Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing §2241 vs §2254; pari materia rationale)
- Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation; more specific statute controls)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1996) (limits on habeas review; §2254 framework)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling in AEDPA context; extraordinary circumstances)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (U.S. 2007) (necessity of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence for tolling)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2004) (proper respondent and custody jurisdiction)