Watts v. Cain
2:12-cv-01039
E.D. La.Apr 10, 2013Background
- Watts was convicted of (second-degree) murder in 1995 and sentenced to life without parole.
- Direct appeal affirmed; conviction became final on January 21, 1997.
- Watts’ first federal habeas petition (2002) was dismissed as untimely; no COA issued.
- Watts sought permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a second/successive federal petition and was authorized to proceed.
- Watts filed the current federal petition on May 17, 2012, asserting new-rule and newly discovered-evidence claims; the court found the petition time-barred under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the petition timely under AEDPA §2244(d)? | Watts contends timing falls under §2244(d)(1)(D) or tolling rules. | The petition is untimely under §2244(d)(1)(A) with no tolling or applicable exceptions. | petition is time-barred |
| Do Melendez-Diaz-based claims activate a new retroactive rule? | Melendez-Diaz is a new rule retroactively applicable to collateral review. | Melendez-Diaz has not been made retroactive for collateral review. | Inapplicable to tolling or merits |
| Does the discovery of new evidence trigger §2244(d)(1)(D)? | New evidence of prosecutorial misconduct would reset the clock. | New evidence here does not qualify as a trigger without an independent constitutional violation. | Not triggering tolling |
| Is equitable tolling warranted here? | Diligence in pursuing claims warrants tolling. | No extraordinary circumstances or diligence shown to justify tolling. | Equitable tolling denied |
| Is the petition properly considered as a successive petition under §2244(b)? | Authorized by the Fifth Circuit; review on the merits should proceed. | Timeliness bars successive petition review; gatekeeping provisions apply. | Not timely for merits review; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2001) (timeliness; finality and one-year clock)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (tolling during state post-conviction review)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (state collateral review tolling)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (new rule; evidentiary implications)
- Rollins v. Cain, 470 F. App’x 276 (5th Cir. 2012) (gatekeeping for second/successive petitions)
- Williams v. Cain, 217 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2000) (timeliness and tolling principles in Louisiana cases)