Term: 2012
Docket: 12-126
Greg Mcquiggin, Warden, Petitioner v. Floyd Perkins
- Pro
12-126 McQUIGGIN V. PERKINS DECISION BELOW: 670 F.3d 665 CERT. GRANTED 10/29/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) contains a one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. In Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010), this Court affirmed that a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of that one- year period "only if he shows: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing." This petition presents two recurring questions of jurisprudential significance involving equitable tolling under AEDPA that have divided the circuits: 1. Whether there is an actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner show an extraordinary circumstance that "prevented timely filing" of a habeas petition. 2. If so, whether there is an additional actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that "he has been pursuing his rights diligently." LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-1875
In the case of Greg McQuiggin, Warden v. Floyd Perkins (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner could still file a habeas corpus petition after the one-year statute of limitations if they can demonstrate actual innocence. Floyd Perkins was convicted for murder in 1993 but failed to appeal within the one-year limit set by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). However, he claimed new evidence had emerged proving his innocence and filed for habeas corpus relief in 2008. The District Court dismissed his application as time-barred under AEDPA's statute of limitations, which was upheld by Sixth Circuit court on appeal. But upon reaching Supreme Court, it held that an exception should be made when there is compelling evidence of "actual innocence". This ruling established 'miscarriage of justice' exception to procedural default rule allowing prisoners who can show their factual innocence through credible new evidence to have their cases heard despite missing filing deadlines.
In the dissenting opinion for Greg McQuiggin, Warden v. Floyd Perkins (2012), Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow actual innocence claims to excuse a petitioner's failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations set by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was not supported by precedent or statutory text. He contended that Congress clearly intended for AEDPA’s time limit to be absolute and unyielding, except in circumstances explicitly stated within the law itself. Scalia also expressed concern about potential misuse of this ruling, suggesting it could open floodgates for prisoners making false innocence claims in an attempt to delay their sentences indefinitely. Furthermore, he criticized what he saw as judicial overreach on part of his colleagues who were essentially rewriting legislation from bench instead of interpreting it.
