Case: 17-13207 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13207
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00047-TJC-PDB
QINARD LAMAR COLLINS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 22, 2020)
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 17-13207 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Qinard Lamar Collins appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition. We (through a single judge) granted a certificate of appealability on
three inter-related issues. First, whether Collins has made a sufficient showing of
actual innocence to overcome any procedural bar to his § 2254 petition. Second,
whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence is cognizable in a § 2254
proceeding. And third, whether Collins is entitled to relief on his claim of actual
innocence or, alternatively, a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
Because Collins only alleged a freestanding actual innocence claim, and because
we’ve held that such a claim is not cognizable in a non-capital § 2254 petition, we
answer “no” to the dispositive second question (relieving us of having to answer the
other questions in the certificate of appealability) and affirm the denial of Collins’s
§ 2254 petition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 2000, Collins’s son was born prematurely. So prematurely, in fact,
that the newborn had to spend the first (and only) ten months of his life under
intensive care and home supervision. Ten months later, Collins called emergency
medical services to his home to report that he had found his son between the mattress
and the crib gasping for air. Neither Collins nor the later-arrived paramedics could
successfully resuscitate the child. The infant was immediately transported to the
hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after. The autopsy report revealed
2
Case: 17-13207 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Page: 3 of 5
multiple bruises and hemorrhages and concluded that the cause of death was
“abusive head injury” with a contributory cause of “battered child syndrome.” The
infant’s mother, Collins’s then girlfriend, told authorities that Collins had abused the
infant, which included blows to the infant’s head. As a result, Collins was charged
with aggravated child abuse and first-degree murder. The state alleged that the cause
of death was “shaken baby syndrome.” Seeking a lesser sentence, and to avoid the
death penalty, Collins pleaded no-contest to second-degree murder and was
sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment.
After multiple failed attempts at relief in state court, Collins filed this § 2254
petition in the Middle District of Florida. Acknowledging that the statute of
limitations for asserting § 2254 relief had lapsed, Collins maintained that his actual
innocence excused the lapse. He alleged that he was actually innocent of the crimes
because new evidence, research, and studies conducted since his conviction
demonstrated that shaken baby syndrome is no longer a valid medical theory. To
back his claim, Collins submitted detailed reports from four medical experts who
examined the victim and found that he died from natural causes, not abuse.
The district court denied Collins’s claim for relief. The district court agreed
with Collins that “actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a
petitioner may pass [notwithstanding the] expiration of the state of limitations.” DE
21 at 3 (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins,
569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013)). Once the
3
Case: 17-13207 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Page: 4 of 5
petitioner gets through the actual innocence gateway, and overcomes the time bar,
he then must allege a viable independent constitutional violation that occurred in the
underlying state criminal proceeding. But as Collins conceded, he only alleged a
freestanding actual innocence claim and did not allege that actual innocence was a
gateway to an independent constitutional violation. Following our court’s precedent,
the district court concluded that Collins’s freestanding actual innocence claim was
not cognizable and denied his petition.
DISCUSSION
Collins contends that the district court erroneously denied his habeas petition.
We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Raulerson
v. Warden,
928 F.3d 987, 995 (11th Cir. 2019).
A state prisoner may pursue habeas relief in federal court “only on the ground
that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). As he did before the district court, Collins argues that
his sole claim—a freestanding actual innocence claim—is cognizable in a non-
capital § 2254 petition (and enough to overcome the one-year statute of limitations).
Collins concedes that the district court was bound by our precedent holding that a
freestanding actual innocence claim in a non-capital § 2254 petition is not
cognizable. So are we. “[O]ur precedent forecloses habeas relief based on a
prisoner’s assertion that he is actually innocent of the crime of conviction ‘absent an
4
Case: 17-13207 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Page: 5 of 5
independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal
proceeding.’”
Raulerson, 928 F.3d at 1004 (quoting Brownlee v. Haley,
306 F.3d
1043, 1065 (11th Cir. 2002)); see also Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney’s Office for
Escambia Cty.,
592 F.3d 1237, 1272 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]his Court’s own
precedent does not allow habeas relief on a freestanding innocence claim in non-
capital cases.”); Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs.,
485 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir.
2007) (“[O]ur precedent forbids granting habeas relief based upon a claim of actual
innocence, anyway, at least in non-capital cases.”). Because Collins did not allege
an independent constitutional claim, his freestanding actual innocence claim is not
cognizable and the district court properly denied it. And because this resolves the
case, we should not, and do not, address the two other questions in the certificate of
appealability.
AFFIRMED.
5
