Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 150 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An application for federal habeas corpus review is not an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Therefore, the pendency of a federal habeas petition does not toll the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
Facts:
- In 1992, Sherman Walker was convicted of robbery in New York state court, with the final conviction entered in June 1992 upon a guilty plea.
- Walker was sentenced to a term of 7 to 14 years in prison.
- After pursuing state remedies, Walker's conviction became final in April 1996.
- The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which established a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions, became effective on April 24, 1996.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherman Walker filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 10, 1996.
- The District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice on July 9, 1996, for failure to exhaust state remedies.
- Walker filed a second federal habeas petition in the same court on May 20, 1997, after the one-year AEDPA limitations period had expired.
- The District Court dismissed the second petition on May 6, 1998, as time-barred.
- Walker, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of Walker's first federal petition, making the second petition timely.
- Duncan, the prison superintendent and appellee in the Second Circuit, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pending application for federal habeas corpus review constitute an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" that tolls the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. An application for federal habeas corpus review is not an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" and therefore does not toll the one-year statute of limitations under § 2244(d)(2). The plain language of the statute, which specifies "State" review, is controlling. Other provisions of AEDPA explicitly use both "State" and "Federal" when referring to both types of proceedings, indicating Congress's omission of "Federal" in § 2244(d)(2) was intentional. Interpreting the provision to include federal petitions would render the word "State" superfluous, violating a cardinal principle of statutory construction. Furthermore, this reading aligns with AEDPA's purpose to promote comity, finality, and federalism by incentivizing petitioners to fully exhaust state remedies before seeking federal review.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. While the majority correctly interprets the statutory text, its holding does not affect the equitable powers of federal courts. To avoid the harsh result of a petitioner's meritorious claim being time-barred due to a technicality, a district court should have the discretion to stay a federal habeas petition containing unexhausted claims and hold it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court. Furthermore, this decision does not preclude a federal court from applying the doctrine of equitable tolling to the limitations period when a petitioner's timely-filed petition is dismissed for non-exhaustion after the one-year period has already expired.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The statutory phrase "State post-conviction or other collateral review" is ambiguous and should be interpreted to include federal habeas petitions to avoid creating a procedural trap for unwary, often pro se, petitioners. The majority's reading can lead to manifestly unfair results where a petitioner who files in a timely manner is ultimately time-barred simply because of the length of time a district court takes to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The statute's purpose of providing a fair and reasonable time for review is better served by tolling the limitations period during the pendency of a federal petition, which would not undermine the goals of comity or finality and would prevent random and unjust outcomes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict interpretation of AEDPA's tolling provision, reinforcing the statute's emphasis on finality and comity. It heightens the procedural burden on habeas petitioners to ensure complete exhaustion of all claims in state court before the one-year federal limitations period expires. The ruling led to the widespread adoption of the 'stay-and-abeyance' procedure, suggested in Justice Stevens' concurrence, where federal courts pause, rather than dismiss, 'mixed' petitions to allow petitioners to exhaust state remedies without falling victim to the statute of limitations. The case thus illustrates the significant tension between AEDPA's rigid procedural requirements and the equitable traditions of habeas corpus.
Unlock the full brief for Duncan v. Walker