Dominguez v. Duval, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Dominguez v. Duval, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/8

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1500

CARLOS DOMI NGUEZ,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

RONALD DUVAL, ET AL. ,

Respondent s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,

Sout er ,

*

Associ at e J ust i ce,and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udge.

Dei r dr e L. Thur ber f or appel l ant .Anne M. Thomas, Ass i st ant At t orney General , wi t h whom Mart ha

Coakl ey, At t or ney Gener al , and J ani ne Lopez, Legal I nt er n, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 23, 2013

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/8

SOUTER, Associate Justice. The appel l ant , Car l os

Domi nguez, was convi ct ed i n a Massachuset t s cour t of t he second

degr ee mur der of Sao Sun. Af t er t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t

af f i r med t he convi ct i on and t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t deni ed

f ur t her appel l at e r evi ew, Domi nguez f i l ed a pet i t i on i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or r el i ef on habeas cor pus, 28 U. S. C.

2254, whi ch was di smi ssed f or unt i mel y f i l i ng i n t he absence of

any appar ent j ust i f i cat i on f or equi t abl e t ol l i ng of t he one- year

st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons, i d. 2244( d) ( 1) . We af f i r m.

The f act s of t he of f ense accept ed by t he Appeal s Cour t

and t he di st r i ct cour t , and not cont est ed her e, show t hat ear l y one

morni ng a resi dent of Gr ove St r eet i n Chel sea, Massachuset t s, went

t o t he wi ndow af t er hear i ng cr i es f r om t he st r eet . He saw t hat

t hey were comi ng f r om an Asi an man bei ng chased by t wo men he

descr i bed as Hi spani c. He i dent i f i ed t he Asi an as Sao Sun, an

habi t ual scavenger around the nei ghborhood, 61 years ol d,

emaci at ed, wei ghi ng about a hundr ed pounds or a l i t t l e over , wi t h

a hear t condi t i on. Somewhat l at er , t he vi ct i m was f ound dead a

shor t di st ance away on a si de st r eet r unni ng of f Gr ove, at a spot

connect ed by a t r ai l of bl ood t o t he pl ace wher e t he wi t ness had

seen hi m r unni ng. The cause of deat h was a st ab wound i n one

shoul der . When t he pol i ce searched Domi nguez s apar t ment t hey

f ound cl othi ng cover ed wi t h Sun s bl ood hi dden behi nd a

r ef r i ger at or , and af t er i ni t i al deni al s Domi nguez admi t t ed

2


3/8

i nf l i ct i ng t he st ab wound. Al t hough he was younger t han t he vi ct i m

and out wei ghed hi m by some f or t y pounds, he sai d he had cut Sun

i n sel f - def ense af t er t he vi cti m had at t acked hi m wi t h a st i ck,

t hr own t he st i ck at hi m and l unged at hi m.

I n t hi s appeal f r omdi smi ssal of t he habeas pet i t i on f or

l at e f i l i ng, t he unt i mel i ness i s uncont est ed, and t he sol e i ssue i s

whet her i t was er r or f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o r ef use equi t abl e

t ol l i ng of t he r unni ng of t he t i me, a mat t er we r evi ew f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Hol mes v. Spencer , 685 F. 3d 51, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

To obt ai n t ol l i ng, as hel d avai l abl e i n Hol l and v. Fl or i da, 130

S. Ct . 2549, 2560 ( 2010) , a pet i t i oner bear s a subst ant i al bur den t o

est abl i sh an except i on t o t he st at ut or y rul e by showi ng t hat he

exer ci sed r easonabl e di l i gence i n t r yi ng t o pr eser ve hi s r i ght s but

was pr event ed f r om t i mel y f i l i ng by ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances,

i d. at 2562. Thi s cour t has f l agged i l l umi nat i ng consi der at i ons

t hat ar e especi al l y hel pf ul i n eval uat i ng a pet i t i oner s cal l f or

equi t y i n a cl ose case. Tr app v. Spencer , 479 F. 3d 53, 61 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) .

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Domi nguez sat i sf i ed

Hol l and s di l i gence r equi r ement but t hought t hat t he ci r cumst ances

wer e unl i kel y to qual i f y as ext r aor di nar y enough t o excuse

mi ssi ng t he deadl i ne. Af t er consul t i ng t he Tr app pr ot ocol , t he

cour t di smi ssed t he unt i mel y pet i t i on f or want of a per suasi ve

3


4/8

basi s i n equi t y t o do ot her wi se. We have no quar r el wi t h ei t her

concl usi on.

The one- year l i mi t at i on per i od endi ng on December 9,

2010, had near l y expi r ed on November 23, when counsel sent t he

habeas pet i t i on t o Domi nguez f or si gnat ur e, addr essed t o hi m at a

New J er sey pr i son wher e pr i or mai l had been sent and del i ver ed.

The envel ope was back i n counsel s of f i ce on December 3, unopened,

wi t h a Ret ur n t o Sender st amp. Af t er ver i f yi ng t hat Domi nguez

was st i l l at t he New J er sey pr i son, counsel mai l ed i t agai n on

December 6 f or expedi t ed del i ver y. Thi s t i me i t was accept ed and

r et ur ned t o the l awyer by the deadl i ne, but i t was not r ecei ved at

t he di st r i ct cour t unt i l t he f ol l owi ng day.

The sequence smacks of t he i nef f i ci enci es t oo endemi c t o

i ncar cer at i on t o qual i f y as ext r aor di nar y. See Hol mes, 685 F. 3d at

63 ( [ The] usual pr obl ems i nher ent i n bei ng i ncar cer at ed do not

j ust i f y equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ;

cf . Sandvi k v. Uni t ed St at es, 177 F. 3d 1269, 1272 ( 11t h Ci r . 1999)

( f i ndi ng a mai l i ng del ay not t o be gr ounds f or equi t abl e t ol l i ng) .

I ndeed, t he onl y var i ant on t he common t heme of pr i son mai l del ay

her e i s t he er r oneous r et ur n, but al t hough t hat f act may be enough

t o pr esent a di scret i onar y j udgment cal l , t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y saw t he Tr app consi der at i ons as count i ng agai nst t ol l i ng.

Tr app i dent i f i ed f i ve poi nt s bear i ng on a cour t s

equi t abl e di scr et i on t o t ol l , t hr ee of t hem i n addi t i on t o

4


5/8

Hol l and s di l i gence and char act er - of - t he- ci r cumst ances as

ext r aor di nar y or not . 479 F. 3d at 61. As t o t hose t hr ee, t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat di l i gence i n exhaust i ng st at e r emedi es and

absence of pr ej udi ce t o t he pr osecut i on f avor ed t ol l i ng her e. But

Tr app s r emai ni ng f act or i s t he appar ent mer i t of t he cl ai ms t hat

woul d be pr essed i f t he pet i t i on shoul d be ent er t ai ned, t ol l i ng not

bei ng i n or der f or cl ai ms of dubi ous mer i t . The di st r i ct cour t

soundl y hel d t hat on t hi s ground Domi nguez was not ent i t l ed t o

equi t abl e r el i ef .

The f i r st of Domi nguez s const i t ut i onal cl ai ms i s t he

conceded er r or of admi t t i ng t he aut opsy r epor t i nt o evi dence

t hr ough t he t est i mony of a doct or who was not pr esent at t he

aut opsy and coul d not suppor t t he r epor t s concl usi ons f r om any

i ndependent exami nat i on of hi s own. See Cr awf ord v. Washi ngt on,

541 U. S. 36 ( 2004) . The onl y quest i on i s whet her t he er r or was

harml ess, as t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t hel d. The def er ent i al

st andar d r equi r i ng a habeas pet i t i oner t o show a st at e cour t s

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of Supr eme Cour t l aw or unr easonabl e

f i ndi ng of f act , see 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) , ( 2) , boi l s down her e

t o t he need t o demonst r at e that t he er r or caused act ual pr ej udi ce

amount i ng t o a subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence i n

det er mi ni ng t he j ur y s ver di ct . Br echt v. Abr ahamson, 507 U. S.

619, 637 ( 1993) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Fry v. Pl i l er ,

551 U. S. 112, 119- 20 ( 2007) . Thi s Domi nguez cannot do.

5


6/8

The r epor t i t sel f consi st ed l ar gel y of cl i ni cal

obser vat i ons wi t hout si gni f i cance t o t he cont est ed i ssues, and

Domi nguez agr eed wi t h i t s concl usi on t hat t he shoul der st ab wound

was the cause of deat h by bl eedi ng. The argument f or prej udi ce

consequent l y addr esses not t he cont ent s of t he repor t but t he

absence of t he exami ni ng pat hol ogi st , whom Domi nguez woul d have

l i ked to ask whet her t he natur e of t he wound support ed hi s

t est i mony t hat he had kni f ed Sun onl y i n def endi ng hi msel f when Sun

l unged at hi m af t er t hr owi ng a st i ck. But not onl y i s t he

subst ance of t he pat hol ogi st s hypot het i cal t est i mony a mat t er of

pur e specul at i on, t he possi bi l i t y that any such t est i mony woul d

have swayed t he j ur y t oward accept i ng Domi nguez s account i s

downr i ght unr eal i st i c. Domi nguez was younger t han t he si ckl y 61

year- ol d Sun and out wei ghed hi mby a good f or t y pounds; no st i ck or

ot her weapon was obser ved by t he wi t ness or f ound at t he scene, and

t her e i s no evi dent i ar y basi s t o suggest t hat t he kni f e st ab mi ght

act ual l y have been a response t o a l unge by an unar med man of Sun s

f r ai l bui l d. Domi nguez s compl ai nt of pr ej udi ce f r om l ack of

t est i moni al suppor t f or hi s ver si on of t he f act s cannot be t aken

ser i ousl y.

The second cl ai m i s of a vi ol at i on of t he st at e s

obl i gat i on t o di scl ose evi dence f avor abl e t o t he def ense under

Br ady v. Maryl and, 373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) , r ai sed by mot i on f or new

t r i al t hat was deni ed by t he t r i al cour t i n a r ul i ng sust ai ned by

6


7/8

t he Appeal s Cour t . The di st r i ct cour t f ound t he mer i t of t hi s

cl ai m dubi ous on t he r equi r ed Br ady el ement of a showi ng by t he

pet i t i oner of a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y of a di f f er ent f i nal

r esul t i f t he evi dence had been made known at t r i al , Uni t ed St at es

v. Bagl ey, 473 U. S. 667, 682 ( 1985) ( opi ni on of Bl ackmun, J . ) ; i d.

at 685 ( Whi t e, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and concur r i ng i n t he

j udgment ) ; see al so Pennsyl vani a v. Ri t chi e, 480 U. S. 39, 57

( 1987) . The cour t doubt ed, t hat i s, t hat t he pet i t i oner coul d show

t hat t he undi scl osed evi dence undermi nes conf i dence i n t he out come

of t he t r i al . Bagl ey, 473 U. S. at 678 ( opi ni on of Bl ackmun, J . ) .

On habeas, of cour se, a st at e def endant must demonst r at e the

unr easonabl eness of a st at e cour t s concl usi on t hat he had not so

shown. Her e, on t he cont r ar y, t he di st r i ct cour t was agai n cor r ect

i n doubt i ng t hat Domi nguez coul d car r y t hi s t wo- f ol d bur den.

The evi dence i n quest i on i s t he i nf or mat i on t hat about

si x mont hs bef ore t he vi ct i m s death hi s son had been convi ct ed of

murder i ng a member of a l ocal gang. Domi nguez ar gues t hat

appr i zi ng t he j ur y of t hi s f act woul d have l ent pl ausi bi l i t y t o hi s

own t est i mony t hat Sun at t acked hi m, supposedl y because Sun mi ght

have thought Domi nguez was i n some way associ at ed wi t h t he ear l i er

mur der vi ct i m or somehow i nst r ument al i n hi s son s ear l i er

convi ct i on. The answer t o t hi s ar gument , as i n t he case of t he

Cr awf or d cl ai m, i s t hat i t i s pur e specul at i on, made up of whol e

7


8/8

cl ot h. Knowl edge of t he son s convi ct i on does not hi ng t o di st ur b

conf i dence i n t he soundness of t he gui l t y ver di ct .

Because t hese under l yi ng i ssues ar e devoi d of any

appar ent mer i t , Tr app suppor t s t he di st r i ct cour t s deni al of

equi t abl e t ol l i ng under t he one- year l i mi t at i on st at ut e, and t he

pet i t i on was cor r ect l y di smi ssed as unt i mel y.

The j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s af f i r med.

It is so ordered.

8

Documents

Dominguez v. Duval, 1st Cir. (2013)