Baze v. Parker

• Citation: 632 F.3d 338
• Decision Date: 04 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–5584.,10–5584.
• Parties: Ralph Stevens BAZE, Jr., Petitioner–Appellant,v.Philip PARKER, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

632 F.3d 338

Ralph Stevens BAZE, Jr., Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Philip PARKER, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 10–5584.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2011.

[632 F.3d 339]

ON BRIEF: David M. Barron, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, Frankfort, Kentucky, Dennis J. Burke, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, LaGrange, Kentucky, for Appellant. William Robert Long, Jr., Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee.Before: BOGGS, COLE, and COOK, Circuit Judges.BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COOK, J., joined. COLE, J. (pp. 346 – 47), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.

OPINION BOGGS, Circuit Judge.

Ralph Stevens Baze, Jr., a Kentucky inmate on death row, wishes to interview prison personnel to support his application for clemency. After the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) denied Baze's request for unfettered access to these personnel, Baze sought relief in district court with a motion to order KDOC

[632 F.3d 340]

to allow him to conduct his desired interviews. The district court denied Baze's motion for a want of jurisdiction, and we affirm.

I

In February 1994, a Kentucky jury sentenced Baze to death for the 1992 murders of Sheriff Steven Bennett and Deputy Sheriff Arthur Briscoe. Direct review concluded in 1998, and this court upheld the denial of Baze's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2004. Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310, 315 (6th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 931, 125 S.Ct. 1670, 161 L.Ed.2d 495 (2005).

After exhausting habeas proceedings, Baze began work on a clemency application.¹ Appellant's Br., at 2. Baze believes that certain individuals at the prison where he is confined possess information that could strengthen his bid for clemency. Accordingly, on January 20, 2009, he requested permission for his attorneys to speak with prison guards, the death row unit administrator, and other death row inmates. Id. at 3. Two days later, the Commissioner of KDOC denied Baze's request.

On February 10, 2009, Baze filed a complaint in state court. Baze sought a declaratory judgment, claiming that KDOC's denial violated his constitutional rights. The court denied his claim, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed on January 21, 2010. Baze v. Thompson, 302 S.W.3d 57, 58, 60 (Ky.2010).

On February 24, 2010, Baze filed a motion in district court, in which he requested an order that KDOC allow him to conduct his desired interviews without interference. Baze argued that the order was authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) and, in the alternative, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

On May 6, 2010, the district court denied Baze's motion. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested order because “[s]ection 3599(f) merely allows the Court to authorize the expenditure of funds ... [and] does not give the Court the authority to issue an order granting a defendant access to certain state officials or others in the hopes that they will provide information relevant to the clemency process.” The court further held that the All Writs Act is not a source of jurisdiction to issue the order because “the Court has no independent jurisdiction over the state clemency process beyond the appointment of counsel under Section 3599(e) ... [and] because Section 3599 is not an independent source of jurisdiction, Baze's requested relief is not available under the All–Writs Act.”

Baze filed this timely appeal, and this court has jurisdiction to review the final decision of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Harbison v. Bell, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1481, 1485, 173 L.Ed.2d 347 (2009) (“An order that merely denies a motion to enlarge the authority of appointed counsel ... is not [an order that disposes of the merits of a habeas proceeding] and is therefore not subject to the [certificate of appealability] requirement.”).

II

The sole issue presented for review is whether Congress has empowered district courts to grant a request like Baze's and to order state officials not to interfere with the gathering of information in support of

[632 F.3d 341]

clemency. ² This court reviews such questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation de novo. Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir.2007) (en banc) (“When a decision on subject-matter jurisdiction concerns pure questions of law ..., this court conducts a de novo review.”) (citation and italics omitted); United States v. Parrett, 530 F.3d 422, 429 (6th Cir.2008) (“We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”).

In determining the scope of a district court's jurisdiction, our starting point is that the lower federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only those powers granted to them by Congress. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 550, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989) (quoting Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976) (noting that “federal courts ... are courts of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress”)). With that principle in mind, federal courts must be reluctant to infer that Congress has expanded their jurisdiction. Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 474, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (citing Am. Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) (“The jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation.”)).

A federal court's reluctance to infer jurisdiction is enhanced where an expansion of jurisdiction would implicate federalism concerns. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971) ( “[U]nless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.”); see Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159, 174, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001) (interpreting a statute to “avoid constitutional and federalism questions” where there was no “clear statement from Congress” to the contrary). Federalism concerns are particularly strong in criminal matters, and, absent a clear directive from Congress or the Constitution, a federal court should be loath to assume jurisdiction to interfere with state criminal proceedings, including postconviction proceedings. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 422, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (“A basic principal of federalism is that each State may make its own reasoned judgment about what conduct is permitted or proscribed within its borders, and each State alone can determine what measure of punishment ... to impose....”); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (noting a “longstanding public policy against federal court interference” with state criminal proceedings); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 726, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (“This is a case about federalism. It concerns the respect that federal courts owe the States and the States' procedural rules when reviewing the claims of state prisoners in federal habeas corpus.”).

III

Here, Baze requests that the district court order state prison officials to provide him with information that he can use in a state clemency proceeding. Baze argues there are two independent sources for this authority: 18 U.S.C. § 3599 and, alternatively, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

[632 F.3d 342]

We consider each of these potential sources of jurisdiction in turn.

A

“Section 3599, titled ‘Counsel for financially unable defendants,’ provides for the appointment of counsel for ... federal capital defendants ... [and] state and federal postconviction litigants.” Harbison, 129 S.Ct. at 1485–86; see 18 U.S.C. § 3599. The Supreme Court recently held that such “state and federal postconviction litigants” include inmates involved in state clemency proceedings. Harbison, 129 S.Ct. at 1491. There is no question, then, that subject to any statutory requirements, the district court is authorized to appoint counsel to assist Baze in preparing his state clemency application, and that any such counsel is entitled to compensation pursuant to section 3599.

Baze, however, argues that section 3599 provides him with much more than that. Baze points to section 3599(f), which provides, in part:

Upon a finding that investigative, expert, or other services are reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant, whether in connection with issues relating to guilt or the sentence, the court may authorize the defendant's attorneys to obtain such services on behalf of the defendant and, if so authorized, shall order the payment of fees and expenses therefor....

Baze argues that, because this provision empowers a federal court to “authorize the defendant's attorneys to obtain” investigative services, then it must also empower the court to order third-party compliance with the attorneys' investigations. Baze effectively interprets the statute to empower federal courts, not only to fund an attorney's efforts to obtain investigative services that the court finds to be reasonably necessary, but also to manage and enforce the collection of evidence in state clemency proceedings.³ Such a broad oversight power is in tension with the longstanding principle that “we do not sit as super appeals courts over state commutation proceedings.” Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849, 852 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 276, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998) (plurality opinion) (“We reaffirm ... that pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Baze raises three arguments in favor of his interpretation, and we reject all three.

First, Baze argues that “the plain...