McQuiggin v. Perkins

McQuiggin v. Perkins
Argued February 25, 2013
Decided May 28, 2013
Full case nameGreg McQuiggin, Warden, Petitioner v. Floyd Perkins
Docket no.12–126
Citations569 U.S. 383 (more)
133 S. Ct. 1924; 185 L. Ed. 2d 1019; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4068
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorPerkins v. McQuiggin, No. 2:08-cv-139 (W.D. Mich. June 18, 2009); 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 977 (2012).
Holding
Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar or the expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentScalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas; Alito (Parts I, II, and III)
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).[1]

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal habeas petition, starting from “the date on which the judgment became final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244.[2] But if the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is one year from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through . . . due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244.[3]

  1. ^ McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013).
  2. ^ 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
  3. ^ 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search