Page 55 - Impact: Collected Essays on Expanding Access to Justice

For the few who manage to file timely petitions, exhaust their state remedies and avoid procedural default, explicit deference to state court findings almost always poses an insurmountable barrier to federal review .31 AEDPA requires a federal habeas petitioner to establish either (1) that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or (2) that the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding .32 Recent interpretation of this provision has confirmed that federal habeas jurisdiction must be evaluated and determined based solely on the state court record and that enormous deference must be accorded to state court decisions .33
An empirical study of habeas litigation in federal trial courts during the first ten years after AEDPA called into question whether the statute had accomplished its stated goals of reducing delay and achieving finality in habeas litigation .34 The average time from state conviction to federal filing in non-capital cases increased, and the number of claims per petition significantly increased .35 However, the statute did severely restrict federal litigation . Twenty-two percent of the non- capital cases were dismissed as time-barred, and depositions or mental or physical examinations were ordered as discovery in only .3 percent of non-capital cases .36 While only 1 percent of all petitioners in non-capital cases had been granted relief before AEDPA, courts granted relief in only 7 of 2384 of the non-capital cases reviewed during the decade after AEDPA was enacted: a relief rate of 0 .29 percent .37
B. The PLrA severely Limits federal Challenges to unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement
Challenges to state prison conditions are typically brought under 42 U .S .C . § 1983 rather than by way of habeas corpus .38 Federal courts began examining state action that violated federal constitutional rights when the Supreme Court revitalized Section 1983 in Monroe v. Pape .39 Faced with the vivid scene of a family rousted out of bed in the middle of the night and made to stand naked in their living room while 13 police officers ransacked their home, the Monroe Court held that Section 1983 was available for the vindication of federal rights, even if the conduct violated state law for which a state remedy existed . It did not take long for the Court to extend
31 Cullen, 563 u.S. 170.
32 28 u.S.C. § 2254(d).
33 Cullen, 563 u.S. 170.
34 Nancy J. king eT al., execuTiVe summary: habeas liTigaTion in u.s. disTricT courTs (2007), available at http://cdm16501. contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/criminal/id/102.
35 Id. at 4.
36 Id. at 5-6.
37 Id. at 9. Both the rate of evidentiary hearings and the rate at which relief was granted were much higher in capital cases, where petitioners are far more likely to have counsel. Id. at 5. Federal evidentiary hearings were held in only .41 percent of non-capital cases while evidentiary hearings were granted in 10 percent of the capital cases. Id. at 5. Relief was granted in 1 out of 8 capital cases. Id. at 10.
38 The line between habeas and civil rights litigation has evolved and is now defined. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement that seek release as the ultimate remedy are cognizable in federal habeas while challenges to conditions of confinement may be brought under Section 1983. See heck v. humphrey, 512 u.S. 477 (1994); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 u.S. 74 (2005).
39 365 u.S. 167 (1961).
Specific Areas for Reform: Prisoners’ Rights
53