Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01737/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01737-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1737

___________

Milo Walter Hirning, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Dooley, Warden of the *

Mike Durfee State Penitentiary, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2006

Filed: December 22, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Milo Hirning appeals the district court's1

 dismissal of his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hirning admitted his petition was untimely

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), but claimed that section 2244(d) violated his constitutional

rights under both the Suspension Clause, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court rejected both claims. 

Appellate Case: 06-1737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262082
-2-

We too reject both arguments. While neither the Supreme Court nor this circuit

has specifically ruled on whether section 2244(d) violates the Suspension Clause, all

of our sister circuits that have answered the question have held that where, as here, no

claim of actual innocence is involved, section 2244(d) does not violate the Suspension

Clause. David v. Hall, 318 F.3d 343, 347 (1st Cir.) (noting that section 2244(d) "is

not even arguably unconstitutional"), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 815 (2003); Hampton v.

Madding, 232 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2000) (mem.) (unpublished table decision), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 1081 (2001); Wyzykowski v. Dep't of Corr., 226 F.3d 1213, 1217

(11th Cir. 2000); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 113 (2d

Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 873 (2000); Davis v. Bumgarner, 201 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.

1999) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390,

392-93 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1007 (1999); Miller v. Marr,

141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 891 (1998). We agree with these

circuits and hold that where the petition does not involve actual innocence, section

2244(d) does not render the habeas remedy inadequate or ineffective, and thus does

not violate the Suspension Clause. See Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977)

(showing of inadequacy or ineffectiveness of habeas remedy required to find a

violation of the Suspension Clause).

Further, we need not address petitioner's substantive due process argument.

Hirning has advanced his argument under the Suspension Clause, which specifically

protects the writ of habeas corpus. We have held that where "'a constitutional claim

is covered by a specific constitutional provision . . . the claim must be analyzed under

the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive

due process.'" Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 646 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (quoting

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 (1998)). Since we have joined our

sister circuits in addressing the claim under the Suspension Clause, there is no need

for a separate substantive due process analysis. 

Appellate Case: 06-1737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262082
-3-

Given that Hirning admits the untimeliness of his petition, and having reviewed

de novo the district court's holding that section 2244(d) neither violates the

Suspension Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, e.g.,

United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 1990) (de novo standard of

review for federal constitutional questions), we find no error in the district court's

dismissal of Hirning's section 2254 petition and affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1737 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2006 Entry ID: 3262082