Bonilla v. Wainwright

• Decision Date: 22 July 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–cv–0224 (ABJ).
• Citation: 798 F.Supp.2d 155
• Parties: Santos F. BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Simon WAINWRIGHT, Warden, D.C. Central Detention Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

798 F.Supp.2d 155

Santos F. BONILLA, Petitioner,

v.Simon WAINWRIGHT, Warden, D.C. Central Detention Facility, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 10–cv–0224 (ABJ).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

July 22, 2011.

Robert Saul Becker, Law Offices of Robert S. Becker, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Eric Sebastian Glover, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia Washington, DC, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.

Petitioner Santos F. Bonilla, a prisoner at the D.C. Central Detention Facility (“D.C. Jail”), filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to vacate a conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Respondent Simon Wainwright, warden at the D.C. Jail, has moved to dismiss petitioner's request for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

BACKGROUND

On March 27, 1998, petitioner was arrested and charged with second-degree murder while armed, in violation of D.C. Code law. Pet. at 2.¹ After a jury trial in D.C. Superior Court, he was found guilty of first-degree murder while armed (premeditated) and conspiracy to assault and commit murder. Id.; Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (“Resp.'s Mot. Dismiss”) at ¶ 4. The trial court judge sentenced petitioner to a term of imprisonment of thirty years to life for the first-degree murder and a concurrent term of twenty to sixty months on the conspiracy offense. Pet. at 2.

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on November 5, 2001, claiming that there was newly-discovered evidence that the prosecutor had coerced a government witness, Hugo Aleman, to testify falsely in the grand jury about petitioner's involvement in the crime. Pet. at 2. Petitioner also claimed that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence concerning Aleman's intoxication at the time of the offense and his prior contradictory statements about the crime. Id. Following an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims, the trial court denied his motion for a new trial on October 10, 2002. Id.²

On appeal in February 2005, the government disclosed exculpatory information regarding another key government witness, Rosa Garcia, in an oral argument in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Pet. at 3. Petitioner then filed a motion under section 23–110 of the D.C.Code (“section 23–110 motion”), asking the Superior Court to vacate his conviction. Id. Petitioner's motion was based on evidence that Garcia had provided a fake Social Security number and passport to the government when she sought admittance to the witness protection program. Id. Petitioner also argued that the government failed to disclose its agreement with Garcia in exchange for her testimony, which allegedly included not prosecuting her for any crimes and not notifying Immigration and Naturalization Services that she was living in the United States illegally. Id. After an evidentiary hearing, the D.C. Superior Court found that there was no such agreement, and it denied the section 23–110 motion on September 1, 2006. United States v. Bonilla, Crim. Nos. F–2332–98, slip op. at 22 (D.C.Sup.Ct. Sept. 1, 2006); see also Pet. at Ex. EE. Petitioner appealed this decision. Pet. at 3.

The D.C. Court of Appeals consolidated his appeal on the 23–110 motion with the direct appeal. Pet. at 3. On March 26, 2009, the court held that the trial judge gave constitutionally deficient instructions as to aiding and abetting first-degree murder but found there was sufficient evidence to convict petitioner of second-degree murder. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court. Id. The Court of Appeals also held that the prosecutor abused the grand jury's subpoena power and suppressed exculpatory evidence but that those errors did not prejudice the petitioner. Id.

The Court of Appeals denied his petition for rehearing en banc, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Pet. at 3. Petitioner was resentenced in D.C. Superior Court on December 11, 2009, to concurrent prison terms of 18 years to life for second-degree murder and 20 to 60 months for conspiracy. Id. Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 16, 2010, asking the Court to vacate his conviction and the sentence imposed by the D.C. Superior Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court must “treat the complaint's factual allegations as true ... and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’ ” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C.Cir.2000), quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.Cir.1979) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff's legal conclusions. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002).

When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F.Supp.2d 59, 63 (D.D.C.2002). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with examination of our jurisdiction.”). Because “subject-matter jurisdiction is ‘an Art[icle] III as well as a statutory requirement ... no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.’ ” Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C.Cir.2003), quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982).

Moreover, unlike when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “is not limited to the allegations of the complaint....” Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Rather, a court “may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.” Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F.Supp.2d 18, 22 (D.D.C.2000). See, e.g., Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005).

ANALYSIS

I. The Court Considers Petitioner a State Prisoner.

Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal law generally governing petitions for writs of habeas corpus in federal court. See Pet. at 1. However, “[t]he D.C. Circuit has consistently held that when considering a writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner of the District of Columbia is considered a State prisoner, when the prisoner is held under a conviction of the D.C. Superior Court.” Banks v. Smith, 377 F.Supp.2d 92, 94 (D.D.C.2005), citing Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308–1310 (D.C.Cir.2002) (concluding that “a court of the District of Columbia is a state court” for purposes of federal habeas cases); Milhouse v. Levi, 548 F.2d 357, 360 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1976) (same). Because petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the D.C. Superior Court, which is the equivalent of a state court in a habeas proceeding, the Court will construe the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law governing petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in federal courts by state prisoners. See Williams v. Apker, 774 F.Supp.2d 124, 126 n. 1 (D.D.C.2011); Banks, 377 F.Supp.2d at 94.³

II. Petitioner Fails to Show that D.C. Code § 23–110 is an Inadequate or Ineffective Remedy.

Petitioner seeks habeas relief challenging his conviction and sentence on two grounds: he claims that (1) his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's admission of a codefendant's confession in their joint trial, see Pet. at 1, 33–40; and (2) that the government withheld exculpatory evidence and information concerning a key witness's intoxication and prior contradictory statements about the crime. Pet. at 1, 40–53. Respondent has moved to dismiss petitioner's claims, arguing that they have been fully litigated and rejected by the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals, and that petitioner has failed to establish that D.C.Code § 23–110 is an ineffective or inadequate remedy by which to challenge his convictions. Resp.'s Mot. Dismiss at 2.

A claim for habeas relief under Section 2254 requires a petitioner to meet certain pleading thresholds. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); D.C.Code § 23–110(g).⁴ Specifically, D.C. law provides that a federal court may not consider a habeas petition unless the local remedy is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of the detention. D.C.Code § 23–110(g).⁵ See also Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381, 384, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977) (stating that section 23–110 includes an “unequivocal statutory command” to federal courts not to entertain a petition for habeas relief unless it appears that the remedy under section 23–110 is inadequate or ineffective); Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36–37 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal footnote omitted) (holding that a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless the local remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”). A remedy is inadequate or ineffective if it deprives a defendant of “any opportunity for judicial rectification of so fundamental a defect in his conviction as...