Rayes v. Diane Sabatka-Rine et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Claim One is not cognizable in an action for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons discussed above, Claim One is dismissed with prejudice. Claim Two may not proceed in this matter at this time. Rayes must show cause within 30 days why Claim Two should not be dismissed as barred by the governing statute of limitations. Rayes is warned that failure to respond to this Memorandum and Order within 30 days will result in dismissal of Claim Two without further notice. Cl aim Three is potentially cognizable in federal court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. [1)], and the "Brief of Habeas Corpus" (Filing No . 9 ) to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. By October 27, 2014, Respondents shall file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer as to Claim Three. If Respondents elect to file a motion for summary judgment, the procedures set forth within this order shall be followed by Respondents and Petitioner. If Respondents elect to file an answer as to Claim Three, the procedures set forth within this order shall be followed b y Respondents and Petitioner. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 5 ) is denied. Petitioner's Motion for Production of Documents (Filing No. 8 ) is granted inpart and denied in part, as set forth above. Petitioner's Motion for Bail (Filing No. 7 ) and Motion for Hearing on Bond(Filing No. 12 ) a re denied. (Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 10/13/2014: Check for response from the petitioner regarding Claim Two; Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 10/27/2014: deadline for Respondents to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment; Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 11/27/2014: check for Respondents to file answer and separate brief) Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed as directed)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD RAYES,
Petitioner,
v.
DIANE SABATKA-RINE, Warden,
NEBRASKA STATE PENITENTIARY,
MICHAEL KENNEY, Director, and
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:14CV3158
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
Petitioner Richard Rayes (“Rayes” or “Petitioner”) has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) and three Supplements (Filing Nos. 4, 9, and 13). The Court
conducted an initial review of these pleadings to determine whether the claims made by
Rayes are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. Also pending
in this matter, and addressed by the Court below, are Rayes’s Motion for the Appointment
of Counsel (Filing No. 5), Motion for Bail (Filing No. 7), Motion for Production of Documents
(Filing No. 8), and Motion for Hearing of Bond (Filing No. 12).
Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claims asserted by Rayes are:
Claim One:
Petitioner’s good-time credits were improperly forfeited
because the director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services (“NDCS”) did not personally approve the
forfeiture of the good-time credits. (Filing No. 1 at ECF 1-3.)
Claim Two:
Petitioner was convicted of arson in 1988 in violation of his due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the
prosecution refused to provide the defense with Petitioner’s
medical records. (Filing No. 1 at ECF 5-8, 11.)
Claim Three:
NDCS officials deprived Petitioner of earned good-time credits
in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. (Filing No. 9 at ECF 1-15.)
Liberally construed, the Court preliminarily decides that Claim One is not cognizable
in a federal habeas corpus action, Claim Two appears to be barred by the governing oneyear statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and Claim Three is cognizable in
a federal habeas corpus action. The Court will discuss the claims in the paragraphs that
follow.1
I. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
A.
Claim One
Rayes argues in Claim One that his good-time credits were improperly forfeited
because the director of the NDCS did not personally approve the forfeiture. Rayes argues
the Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in Martin v. Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services, 671 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2003), was incorrect because Nebraska statutory law
requires the director to personally approve the forfeiture of good-time credits.2
1
Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides: “A petitioner who seeks relief from
judgments of more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of
each court.” Here, the judgments challenged in the habeas corpus petition and supplements appear to have
all occurred in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. Thus, for the time being, the undersigned
judge will consider all three of Petitioner’s claims in the same action.
2
The Nebraska Supreme Court held in Martin that the director of the NDCS and the chief executive
officers of the prison at issue in the case “acted within their authority in delegating to subordinate officials the
duty to approve the forfeiture of good time.” 671 N.W.2d at 619.
2
As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a):
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district
court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). Here, Rayes does not argue that he is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Rather, he argues
that a state court improperly applied state statutory law. Such a claim is not cognizable in
an action for writ of habeas corpus and will be dismissed. The Court will dismiss the claim
with prejudice because, in light of the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in Martin, the
claim is frivolous.
B.
Claim Two
Rayes seeks to challenge his 1988 convictions for arson. Rayes is incarcerated in
the Nebraska State Penitentiary. Rayes was convicted of kidnapping in 1981 and began
serving a 15 to 50 year sentence. See State v. Rayes, No. A-93-862, 1994 WL 259508
(Neb. Ct. App. June 14, 1994). While incarcerated at the Nebraska State Penitentiary,
Rayes received “two, one year misdemeanor sentences” for arson. (Filing No. 1 at ECF
11.)
A district court may consider, sua sponte, the timeliness of a state prisoner’s habeas
corpus petition. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006). The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 110 Stat. 1214, establishes a one-year
limitations period for state prisoners to file for federal habeas relief that runs from the latest
of four specified dates:
3
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State
action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed,
if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized
by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, the statute of limitations period is tolled while a state
post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. King v. Hobbs, 666 F.3d 1132, 1135
(8th Cir. 2012) (citing § 2244(d)(2)).
In Nichols v. Bowersox, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the time before
the effective date of AEDPA (April 24, 1996), is not counted in computing the one-year
period of limitation. 172 F.3d 1068, 1073 (8th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by
Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 2008). Prisoners whose judgments of
conviction became final before the effective date of AEDPA are given a one-year period
after that date, or until April 24, 1997, plus any additional period during which the statute
is tolled. Peterson v. Gammon, 200 F.3d 1202, 1204 (8th Cir. 2000).
It appears from the face of Rayes’s petition that his judgment of conviction became
final before the effective date of AEDPA. Thus, absent equitable or statutory tolling, he
had one year, or until April 24, 1997, to file for federal habeas corpus relief challenging his
arson convictions. Rayes filed his habeas corpus petition in this Court on August 7, 2014.
4
Thus, absent sufficient tolling or an equitable exception, any claims related to Rayes’s
arson convictions or sentences are barred by the statute of limitations.
1.
Statutory Tolling
As set forth above, section 2244(d)(2) tolls the statute of limitations during the
pendency of “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral
review.” Here, Petitioner does not specify whether he filed for postconviction relief in the
state district court. However, unless his postconviction action was pending in state court
for more than 15 years, Petitioner cannot demonstrate the availability of statutory tolling.
2.
Equitable Tolling
AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling “in appropriate cases.”
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010) (citations omitted). Generally, a litigant
seeking equitable tolling must establish two elements: “(1) that he has been pursuing his
rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Walker
v. Norris, 436 F.3d 1026, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Equitable tolling
is proper “only when extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it
impossible to file a petition on time.” Runyan v. Burt, 521 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation omitted). As such, “equitable tolling is an exceedingly narrow window
of relief.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Rayes does not argue in his petition that AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject
to equitable tolling. However, on the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by the
5
governing statute of limitations. He may discuss any pleas for equitable tolling in his
response to the Court’s order to show cause.
3.
Actual Innocence
In McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a
habeas corpus petitioner can overcome the expiration of AEDPA’s statute of limitations by
making a convincing showing of actual innocence. See McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. 1928. The
Supreme Court held that a petitioner attempting to show actual innocence is required to
produce new evidence sufficient to persuade the district court that “no juror, acting
reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 133 S.Ct. at
1982 (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995)). Actual innocence means factual
innocence, not legal innocence or legal insufficiency. Narcisse v Dahm, 9 F.3d 38, 40 (8th
Cir. 1993).
Rayes has produced no new evidence in support of a claim that he is actually
innocent. However, on the Court’s own motion, Rayes will be given an opportunity to show
cause why Claim Two should not be dismissed as barred by the governing statute of
limitations. He may produce new evidence in support of his actual-innocence claim in his
response to the Court’s order to show cause.
C.
Claim Three
Rayes argues in Claim Three that NDCS officials have deprived him of good-time
credit guaranteed to him by the relevant NDCS policies and procedures. Claim Three is
cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action as a federal due process claim. The court
cautions Rayes that no determination has been made regarding the merits of the claim or
6
any defenses to it or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent Rayes from
obtaining the relief sought.
II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
“There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas
proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”
McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). As a general rule, counsel will not
be appointed unless the case is unusually complex or the petitioner’s ability to investigate
and articulate the claims is unusually impaired or an evidentiary hearing is required. See,
e.g., Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558-59 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 984
(2000); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). See also Rule 8(c) of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring
appointment of counsel if an evidentiary hearing is warranted.) The court has carefully
reviewed the record and finds that there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this
time.
III. MOTION FOR RECORDS
Rayes seeks an order compelling Respondents to produce all state court records
relating to his claims. As set forth below, the Court will direct Respondents to file all state
court records that are relevant to Claim Three. To the extent Rayes seeks production of
records relating to Claims One or Two, his request is denied at this time.
IV. MOTIONS FOR BAIL AND FOR HEARING ON BOND
Rayes’s motions seeking release on bond are denied. Rayes has not persuaded
this Court that there are “substantial questions” presented in his habeas corpus petition or
7
that “some circumstance makes his application ‘exceptional and deserving of special
treatment in the interests of justice.’” Ryan v. Smith, No. 14-11611, 2014 WL 1910254, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2014) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964)).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Claim One is not cognizable in an action for writ of habeas corpus. For the
reasons discussed above, Claim One is dismissed with prejudice.
2.
Claim Two may not proceed in this matter at this time. Rayes must show
cause within 30 days why Claim Two should not be dismissed as barred by
the governing statute of limitations. Rayes is warned that failure to respond
to this Memorandum and Order within 30 days will result in dismissal of
Claim Two without further notice. The Clerk’s Office is directed to set a pro
se case management deadline in this matter: October 13, 2014: Check for
response from the petitioner regarding Claim Two.
3.
Claim Three is potentially cognizable in federal court.
4.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and
Order, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1), and the “Brief of
Habeas Corpus” (Filing No. 9) to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney
General by regular first-class mail.
5.
By October 27, 2014, Respondents shall file a motion for summary judgment
or state court records in support of an answer as to Claim Three. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this
case using the following text: October 27, 2014: deadline for Respondents
8
to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary
judgment.
6.
If Respondents elect to file a motion for summary judgment, the following
procedures shall be followed by Respondents and Petitioner:
A.
The motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a
separate brief, submitted at the time of the filing of the motion.
B.
The motion for summary judgment shall be supported by such state
court records as are necessary to support the motion. Those records
shall be contained in a separate filing entitled: “Designation of State
Court Records in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.”
C.
Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation,
including state court records, and Respondents’ brief shall be served
upon Petitioner except that Respondents are only required to provide
Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record which are
cited in Respondents’ brief. In the event that the designation of state
court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner, Petitioner may file
a motion with the court requesting additional documents.
Such
motion shall set forth the documents requested and the reasons the
documents are relevant to the cognizable claims.
D.
No later than 30 days following the filing of the motion for summary
judgment, Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in opposition to the
9
motion for summary judgment. Petitioner shall submit no other
documents unless directed to do so by the Court.
E.
No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner’s brief,
Respondents shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that
Respondents elect not to file a reply brief, they should inform the court
by filing a notice stating that they will not file a reply brief and that the
motion is therefore fully submitted for decision.
F.
If the motion for summary judgment is denied, Respondents shall file
an answer, a designation and a brief that complies with terms of this
order. (See the following paragraph.) The documents shall be filed no
later than 30 days after the denial of the motion for summary
judgment. Respondents are warned that the failure to file an
answer, a designation and a brief in a timely fashion may result
in the imposition of sanctions, including the release of Petitioner.
7.
If Respondents elect to file an answer as to Claim Three, the following
procedures shall be followed by Respondents and Petitioner:
A.
By October 27, 2014, Respondents shall file all state court records
that are relevant to the cognizable claims. See, e.g., Rule 5(c)-(d) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Those records shall be contained in a separate filing entitled:
“Designation of State Court Records in Support of Answer.”
10
B.
No later than 30 days after the filing of the relevant state court
records, Respondents shall file an answer. The answer shall be
accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of the filing of
the answer. Both the answer and brief shall address all matters
germane to the case including, but not limited to, the merits of
Petitioner’s allegations that have survived initial review, and whether
any claim is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a
procedural bar, non-retroactivity, a statute of limitations, or because
the petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition. See,
e.g., Rules 5(b) and 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts.
C.
Copies of the answer, the designation, and Respondents’ brief shall
be served upon Petitioner at the time they are filed with the Court
except that Respondents are only required to provide Petitioner with
a copy of the specific pages of the designated record which are cited
in Respondents’ brief. In the event that the designation of state court
records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner, Petitioner may file a
motion with the court requesting additional documents. Such motion
shall set forth the documents requested and the reasons the
documents are relevant to the cognizable claims.
D.
No later than 30 days following the filing of Respondents’ brief,
Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in response. Petitioner shall
11
submit no other documents unless directed to do so by the
Court.
E.
No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner’s brief, Respondents
shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondents elect
not to file a reply brief, they should inform the Court by filing a notice
stating that they will not file a reply brief and that the merits of the
petition are therefore fully submitted for decision.
F.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: November 27, 2014:
check for Respondents to file answer and separate brief.
8.
No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts.
9.
Petitioner’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 5) is denied.
10.
Petitioner’s Motion for Production of Documents (Filing No. 8) is granted in
part and denied in part, as set forth above.
11.
Petitioner’s Motion for Bail (Filing No. 7) and Motion for Hearing on Bond
(Filing No. 12) are denied.
DATED this 11th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?