Van Poyck v. McCollum
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14530
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Van Poyck was convicted of murder during an escape attempt; sentenced to death, and their conviction/sentence were upheld on direct review.
- He sought access to the clothing evidence from the murder for modern DNA testing in 2003 under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853; the Florida trial court and Florida Supreme Court denied relief (Van Poyck IV).
- In 2008, Van Poyck filed a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking access to the evidence to perform DNA testing to pursue clemency; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff argued a federally protected liberty interest in DNA testing to obtain meaningful clemency proceedings; he invoked substantive due process and related rights.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the claim was not time-barred and that Osborne/Skinner do not recognize a general right to post-conviction DNA testing for capital defendants, and that plaintiff failed to show a federally protected right was violated.
- The decision affirms the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeliness of the §1983 claim | Van Poyck argues accrual began when access was denied in 1998–2005. | State officers contend accrual in 1998 and time-bar by 2002-2003. | Not time-barred; accrual in 2005, timely in 2008. |
| whether a capital defendant has a federally protected right to post-conviction DNA testing to pursue clemency | He asserts a liberty interest in meaningful clemency via DNA testing under §1983. | Osborne and Skinner reject substantive due process as a basis for DNA testing claims; procedural avenues exist but not here. | No recognized federally protected right; claim fails on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (U.S. 2009) (rejected substantive due process right to DNA testing for non-capital defendants; preserves state regulation of DNA testing.)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2011) (reiterates Osborne; declines to recognize substantive due process right for capital DNA testing.)
- Grayson v. King, 460 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2006) (requires showing denial of a federally protected right to sustain §1983 claim.)
- Henyard v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 543 F.3d 644 (11th Cir. 2008) (discusses accrual for §1983 claims in Florida context.)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (accrual standards for §1983 claims.)
- Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1987) (accrual principles for §1983 claims.)
- Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 904 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1990) (accrual rule for §1983 claims based on final state decision.)