DC Circuit: Federal Prisoner not Limited to Seeking Relief via Habeas Corpus
DC Circuit: Federal Prisoner not Limited to Seeking Relief via Habeas Corpus
by Michael Brodheim
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a federal prisoner may seek relief via means other than habeas corpus, so long as success on the merits of the claim does not “necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration.”
In 1993, Brian A. Davis was convicted of drug-related offenses involving both powder and crack cocaine. At that time the federal sentencing guidelines treated 1 gram of crack cocaine the same, for sentencing purposes, as 100 grams of powder cocaine, resulting in a 100:1 sentencing disparity. Davis received a life sentence, later reduced to 30 years in federal prison.
In 2007 and again in 2010, both Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission took steps to reduce the sentencing disparity related to crack and powder cocaine (the current ratio is 18:1 under the Fair Sentencing Act). Unfortunately for Davis, those efforts only included crimes involving amounts of cocaine less than the amounts involved in his offenses.
In 2011, Davis filed suit under Bivens and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), seeking a declaration that he was denied equal protection under the law because Congress and the Sentencing Commission had failed to reduce the sentencing disparity for defendants – like himself – who were convicted of crimes involving larger amounts of crack cocaine.
Davis sought to “compel the Commission to reinstate its proposed 1995 amendments” to the federal sentencing guidelines, which would have created a 1:1 sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Congress had expressly rejected the proposed amendments when it passed Public Law 104-38.
The district court dismissed Davis’ lawsuit on the grounds that the relief he requested was only available, if at all, via a petition for habeas corpus.
The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that Supreme Court precedent “channeled” prisoners’ claims for relief into habeas petitions only if the remedy sought was within “the ‘core of habeas.’” Citing Wilkinson v. Austin, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) [PLN, Aug. 2005, p.24], the appellate court concluded that a habeas petition was required only if success on the merits of the claim would “necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration.”
The Court of Appeals reasoned that success for Davis would not “necessarily” lead to a decrease in his prison term, because even if he prevailed on his equal protection challenge the district court would still retain the discretion to deny him a sentence reduction. The Court also found that Davis could proceed on his Bivens action, while remarking that his Bivens claim was “admittedly flawed ... and possibly fatally so.” See: Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission, 716 F.3d 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Following remand, the district court granted the Sentencing Commission’s motion to dismiss on April 11, 2014, noting that federal circuit courts had found no constitutional equal protection violation in Congress’ refusal to enact the Commission’s 1995 proposed amendments, and that Davis had failed to cite authority to support his argument other than a concurring opinion in a Second Circuit case. See: Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission, U.S.D.C. (D. D.C.), Case No. 1:11-cv-01433-JEB.
Additional source: www.famm.org
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C. (D. D.C.), Case No. 1:11-cv-01433-JEB |
| Level | District Court |
Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 716 F.3d 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |