The Connection Between State Criminal Practice and Practice in the Federal Court. I. Habeas Corpus State Court Conviction 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Federal Court Conviction 28 U.S.C. §2255) A. Early History of Writ of Habeas Corpus 1. Boumedeine v. Bush, _US_ 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008) a. United States Constitution Article I, Section 9 Clause 2. “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.” b. Limit on executive power – Habeas Corpus protection within the Legislative Branch. c. Courts can call the custodian of the petitioner to explain basis of custody. B. Present Day – 28 U.S.C. §2254 1. One Year Statute of Limitations – One Year + 90 days from date of highest state court ruling – 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1). 2. 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1) a. Exhaust all State Court remedies – Rose v. Lundy, 455 US 509 (1982) present all Federal claims at trial and on appeal on facts/law. b. Key – issue must be a Federal Constitutional law claim – cite U.S. Constitution or US SCt. precedent. 3. 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1)(2) State Court judgment contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established US SCt. precedent or unreasonable determination of facts in light of evidence presented. a. State Court did not cite applicable US SCt. cases or misapplied. Williams v. Taylor, 529 US 362 (2000). 4. No Fourth Amendment claims if full and fair opportunity to litigate claim in State Courts – Stone v. Powell, 428 US 465 (1976). 5. Custody – In prison/jail or on probation or parole – freedom restrained [judgment stayed]. 6. Federal Constitutional violation – Not violation of State law – violation of State law ≠ Due Process Violation. C. Petitioner needs to raise all issues sought to be presented at each level of the state, trial court and at each level of the appellate court system including discretionary review in the State’s Supreme Court – O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 US 838 (1999) D. Petitioner must identify each issue as a federal constitutional claim if habeas relief may be anticipated 1. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) a. It is important to first allow the State Court to resolve any federal claims that a prisoner may have based on a State Court conviction. 2. Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886) 3. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) a. Federal and State Courts are equally bound to protect the constitution. State Courts should have the first opportunity to correct violations that happen. E. Petitioner must overcome any procedural defects – Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 US 72 (1977) [cause and prejudice test if procedural default]. 1. Trest v. Cain 522 U.S. 87 (1997) a. The court is not obligated to raise procedural defaults sua sponte. Generally the state raises the issue of procedural defaults as a defense. F. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims need to be raised independently and exhausted. 1. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 a. Claim must be presented in State Court as an independent claim before it can be used to overcome a procedural default. b. The claim must rise to the level of a constitutional violation. II. Federal Civil Rights Action 42 USC §1983 – State or Federal Court action alleging State actors violated Federal Rights of plaintiff. A. Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167 (1961) overruled in part by Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 US 658 (1978) – Monroe gives good historical overview of 42 USC §1983 1. State Action = Government Action – City – County ‐ State 2. Custom, Practice, Policy, Usage 3. City – County = official and individual capacity law suits – equitable relief and money damages B. Action against the State – Individual or Official Capacity lawsuits ‐ Kentucky v. Graham, 473 US 159 (1985) 1. Money damages barred against the State if official capacity lawsuit per 11th Amendment – Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58 (1989). 2. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (1982) individual liability claims barred by qualified immunity unless actor violated constitutional rights of plaintiff that were clearly established at the time of the violation Hope v. Pelzer, 536 US 730 (2002) [qualified immunity is a notice requirement – new, novel situation need not be factually similar to past cases to constitute notice] C. Criminal conviction will bar later money damages action if successful §1983 claim would invalidate basis of conviction – Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 477 (1994) D. Statute of limitations is that provided by State for personal injury lawsuits. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 US 261 (1985) [personal injury statute of limitations govern §1983]. Owens v. Okure, 488 US 235 (1989) [when multiple personal injury statutes of limitation, court should use the general or residual statute for personal injury actions] – See Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Oh. St. 3d 305, 2008 – Ohio – 3918 [ Ohio had multiple relevant statutes, so R.C. 2305.10 applies, setting statute of limitations at 2 years]. E. Wallace v. Kato, 549 US 384 (2007), false imprisonment cause of action accrues when imprisonment is rendered lawful per a judicial officer.