Archeval v. Goguen
Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-CV-40120-TSH
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; September 20, 2017; Federal District Court
Respondent Colette Goguen's motion to dismiss Petitioner Domingo Archeval's habeas corpus petition is based on the assertion that Archeval's first claim—regarding the trial judge's failure to issue a missing witness instruction—is unexhausted. Archeval contends that he has effectively exhausted this claim and asserts actual innocence. The court clarifies that exhaustion of state remedies is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(c), meaning a federal court will not consider a habeas application until the petitioner has fully pursued state remedies for every claim. Archeval acknowledges he did not adequately present the federal nature of his missing witness claim in state court, arguing instead that the state and federal standards are similar. However, the court emphasizes that claims must be clearly articulated to preserve federal issues; otherwise, they are regarded as state-law matters. The court finds that Archeval's presentation of his claim relied solely on Massachusetts law, failing to meet the standard for a federal due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also addresses Archeval's argument of actual innocence as a means to bypass the exhaustion requirement. It notes that the First Circuit does not recognize such a bypass. The evidence Archeval presents to support his claim of actual innocence—a post-acquittal affidavit from his brother confessing to the murder—lacks credibility and fails to meet the stringent standard required to demonstrate that a reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt about his guilt. Consequently, the court concludes that Archeval has not exhausted his state remedies regarding the missing witness instruction claim and denies his motion to appoint counsel. Archeval's Petition is classified as a 'mixed petition' containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The District Court will allow Archeval to amend his petition by removing the unexhausted claim regarding the missing witness instruction instead of dismissing it outright. The Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice, and Archeval must file the amended petition by October 18, 2017. Failure to do so will permit the Respondent to renew the motion to dismiss, which will be granted. Archeval's request for court-appointed counsel is also denied without prejudice, as the interests of justice do not necessitate it given the unexhausted claim. The court can stay mixed petitions to allow petitioners to exhaust state court remedies, but this is contingent upon showing 'good cause' for the failure to exhaust, the potential merit of claims, and the absence of intentionally dilatory behavior. While Archeval has not shown dilatory tactics, he has not established 'good cause' for failing to exhaust his state remedies, especially since ineffective assistance of counsel is not considered 'good cause.' Furthermore, his argument regarding the missing witness instruction lacks merit, leading to the denial of any stay and abeyance motion.