Becerra v. United States

Background

Erik Becerra, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A habeas petition asks a federal court to review the legality of a person’s custody. Becerra challenged the validity of his 2005 Minnesota state-court convictions for robbery and kidnapping.

Becerra had later received federal prison sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. After completing that sentence, he was committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 because the United States considered him a significant danger to the public because of mental disorders.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying Becerra’s petition because it was untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction. Becerra objected, arguing that he was actually innocent and therefore qualified for an exception to the filing deadline. The United States argued that the recommendation should be adopted.

Analysis

The court first determined that the petition was untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a person held under a state-court judgment generally has one year from the final judgment to file a federal habeas petition. The court explained that a sufficiently strong showing of actual innocence can sometimes overcome that deadline. It applied the demanding standard requiring evidence showing that no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Becerra’s actual-innocence argument. For the kidnapping conviction, Becerra cited what he described as an “England liscence” allowing him to abduct a person for three to five days. For the robbery conviction, he said that he had held the victim’s money to protect it and returned it. The court was not convinced of his actual innocence, noting that Becerra had pleaded guilty to the crimes and was civilly committed because of mental illness.

The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction even if the petition had been timely. A person may use federal habeas review to challenge a state-court judgment when the person is in custody because of that judgment. The court found that Becerra was not in custody because of the Minnesota convictions; he was civilly committed under a federal court order pursuant to § 4246. The court therefore could not review the validity of the state convictions.

Disposition

The court overruled Becerra’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s report and recommendation. It denied Becerra’s petition, denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because it found that its procedural ruling was not reasonably debatable. The dismissal without prejudice means the opinion states that Becerra may refile if new information relevant to the court’s decision becomes available.