Timms v. Johns
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24821
| 4th Cir. | 2010Background
- Timms petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 as a sexually dangerous person.
- § 4248 allows civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons following expiration of federal prison sentences, upon a district court finding by clear and convincing evidence.
- Comstock challenged § 4248 and the Fourth Circuit held it unconstitutional, later reversed by the Supreme Court, which upheld Congress's authority.
- The government filed a Commitment Action against Timms before his release date; the district court placed the action in abeyance pending Comstock’s appeal.
- Timms then sought habeas relief in the district court arguing § 4248 is unconstitutional and seeking immediate release; the district court granted relief, which this court vacated.
- On appeal, the court held Timms failed to exhaust the Commitment Action remedies and declined to apply Boumediene’s exception to exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Timms exhausted his remedies in the Commitment Action | Timms exhausted his remedies via habeas review. | Timms failed to pursue the Commitment Action remedies. | Exhaustion required; Timms did not exhaust. |
| Whether Boumediene’s exceptional-circumstances rule applies to excuse exhaustion | Boumediene excuses exhaustion due to delay and detention. | No exceptional circumstances; delay not excusable here. | Boumediene exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 551 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2009) (upheld federal authority to commit as necessary and proper under Necessary and Proper Clause (subject to later Supreme Court review))
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (exhaustion may be excused in extraordinary detention conditions)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (prudential limits on habeas relief; writ not available in all circumstances)
- Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1976) (habeas power discretionary; not always invoked)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (exhaustion required before collateral habeas relief where adequate remedy exists)
- Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2004) (habeas review appropriate when other statutory remedies exist)
- Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (district courts retain jurisdiction when petitioner has no other remedy)
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) (Supreme Court reversal of Fourth Circuit; sustained congressional authority)