Milo Walter Hirning v. Robert Dooley , 209 F. App'x 614 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-1737
    ___________
    Milo Walter Hirning,                      *
    *
    Appellant,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * District of South Dakota.
    Robert Dooley, Warden of the              *
    Mike Durfee State Penitentiary,           *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                    *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 13, 2006
    Filed: December 22, 2006
    ___________
    Before RILEY, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Milo Hirning appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hirning admitted his petition was untimely
    under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), but claimed that section 2244(d) violated his constitutional
    rights under both the Suspension Clause, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process
    Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court rejected both claims.
    1
    The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District for the
    District of South Dakota.
    We too reject both arguments. While neither the Supreme Court nor this circuit
    has specifically ruled on whether section 2244(d) violates the Suspension Clause, all
    of our sister circuits that have answered the question have held that where, as here, no
    claim of actual innocence is involved, section 2244(d) does not violate the Suspension
    Clause. David v. Hall, 
    318 F.3d 343
    , 347 (1st Cir.) (noting that section 2244(d) "is
    not even arguably unconstitutional"), cert. denied, 
    540 U.S. 815
    (2003); Hampton v.
    Madding, 
    232 F.3d 894
    (9th Cir. 2000) (mem.) (unpublished table decision), cert.
    denied, 
    531 U.S. 1081
    (2001); Wyzykowski v. Dep't of Corr., 
    226 F.3d 1213
    , 1217
    (11th Cir. 2000); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 
    209 F.3d 107
    , 113 (2d
    Cir.), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 873
    (2000); Davis v. Bumgarner, 
    201 F.3d 435
    (4th Cir.
    1999) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Turner v. Johnson, 
    177 F.3d 390
    ,
    392-93 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 
    528 U.S. 1007
    (1999); Miller v. Marr,
    
    141 F.3d 976
    , 978 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    525 U.S. 891
    (1998). We agree with these
    circuits and hold that where the petition does not involve actual innocence, section
    2244(d) does not render the habeas remedy inadequate or ineffective, and thus does
    not violate the Suspension Clause. See Swain v. Pressley, 
    430 U.S. 372
    , 381 (1977)
    (showing of inadequacy or ineffectiveness of habeas remedy required to find a
    violation of the Suspension Clause).
    Further, we need not address petitioner's substantive due process argument.
    Hirning has advanced his argument under the Suspension Clause, which specifically
    protects the writ of habeas corpus. We have held that where "'a constitutional claim
    is covered by a specific constitutional provision . . . the claim must be analyzed under
    the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive
    due process.'" Moran v. Clarke, 
    296 F.3d 638
    , 646 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (quoting
    County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 
    523 U.S. 833
    , 843 (1998)). Since we have joined our
    sister circuits in addressing the claim under the Suspension Clause, there is no need
    for a separate substantive due process analysis.
    -2-
    Given that Hirning admits the untimeliness of his petition, and having reviewed
    de novo the district court's holding that section 2244(d) neither violates the
    Suspension Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, e.g.,
    United States v. Buckner, 
    894 F.2d 975
    , 978 (8th Cir. 1990) (de novo standard of
    review for federal constitutional questions), we find no error in the district court's
    dismissal of Hirning's section 2254 petition and affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-