Court Opinion

ID: 9496941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:39:20.645687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:54.044270
License: Public Domain

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment and dissenting:
I do not join in any portion of the court’s opinion. I do, however, agree with the conclusions reached by the court in Parts III, IV, and V of its opinion. For reasons that I will offer expeditiously (subject only to any time needed by my colleagues to prepare response), I dissent from the court’s judgment on the McKoy issue.
This case was first argued before a panel of the court on September 25, 2002. The panel issued its decision and opinion on February 5, 2003, and a corrected opinion on February 14, 2003. Because more than 120 days had elapsed between the filing of the petitioner’s reply brief on September 3, 2002, and the date that the panel issued its decision and opinion, the panel was in violation of the time limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2266(c)(1)(A), as adopted by this circuit’s Judicial Council, at the time that it issued its decision and opinion.
We issued our order directing en banc consideration of the case on March 24, 2003, and the case was argued before the court en banc on June 4, 2003, almost a year ago.
Under the time limitations established by federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2266(c)(l)(B)(ii), as adopted by this circuit’s Judicial Council, the en banc court was obligated to have decided the case no later than July 22, 2003.* Thus, we are *353already eight months beyond the date by which we were statutorily required to decide this case.
In my judgment, for reasons internal to the court, the opinion writing process is not likely to conclude in the immediately foreseeable future. However, it is clear at this time that the members of the court have come to rest on the disposition of the case.
Because the court has been in violation of the statutory time limitations governing the decision of this case for over eight months already, there is in my judgment no final set of opinions immediately forthcoming, and the members of the court have come to rest on the final disposition of the case, I believe that the only responsible course is for the court to issue those opinions that are final at this time, which opinions represent the court’s decision in the case, and for any further separate opinions, including my own dissent, to be filed in due course following announcement of the court’s judgment and decision. This is the course adopted by the court today, and, given the circumstances, it is a course of which I approve.
In order to expedite and facilitate the completion of the opinions for the court in this case, the State of North Carolina should promptly decide whether to move the court for reconsideration of today’s decision and, if it chooses to seek reconsideration, file the appropriate papers, after which the petitioner may file responsive papers. If the state chooses not to move the court for reconsideration, it is my understanding that the majority judgment and opinion issued today, together with the separate opinions filed, will become the final judgment and set of opinions in the *354case, absent sua sponte action by a member of the court.

 In 1996, the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit adopted the time limitations set forth in section 2266 for decision of habeas petitions, in all capital cases, regardless of *353whether the state from which the capital case originates has opted-in or not. See Judicial Council Order No. 113 (4th Cir. Oct. 3, 1996); see also Truesdale v. Moore, 142 F.3d 749, 758 (4th Cir.1998) (“Order No. 113 imposes on district courts and the circuit court a timetable for deciding petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 2255 by defendants who are under sentence of death.”). In Truesdale, this court rejected the claim that Order No. 113 conflicted with AEDPA (by adopting the time limitations of section 2266 regardless of whether a state had opted-in and thereby "disrupting] the statute's incentive structure”) and emphasized that in adopting Order No. 113, the Judicial Council “simply exercised its recognized power to address ... [the] problem of delay in collateral review of capital convictions and sentences.” Truesdale, 142 F.3d at 759. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(2), orders of a circuit judicial council are binding on all judicial officers in the circuit, and may be enforced through contempt proceedings. Thus, under Order No. 113, which binds all of the judges in this circuit on pain of contempt, we were obligated to decide this case by the deadlines set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2266.
Contrary to Judge Gregory’s assertion, it is not the case that we only violate the time limitations of Order No. 113 if the Circuit Executive has inquired into our delay and found it unjustified. An inquiry by the Circuit Executive, which Order No. 113 “authorize[s],” or even a determination after a contempt proceeding brought by the Judicial Council itself that we have no valid reason for violating these time limitations, for which 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(2) provides, is, at most, a predicate to reprimand, not a precondition to violation of Order No. 113. In fact, Judge Gregory's own acknowledgment of this court’s "noncompliance” with Order No. 113, ante at 349-350 n. 8, proves that even he accepts this to be so. Instead, it is plain that our statutory obligation to follow such orders exists irrespective of an inquiry by the Circuit Executive. See 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(2) (“All judicial officers and employees of the circuit shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the judicial council.") (emphasis added). In short, that the time limitations may be "self-policing” does not mean that they are not obligatory, just as the simple fact that the Circuit Executive has not yet inquired into our non-compliance with those limitations does not mean that we are not in violation of them.