Hubbard v. United States, No. 20-16094 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 1982, a court-martial convicted Hubbard of murder and sentenced him to life in prison. He previously filed unsuccessful federal habeas petitions and, in 2019, sought DNA testing under the Innocence Protection Act (IPA), 18 U.S.C. 3600(a), to prove his innocence.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court was not the court that entered the judgment of conviction; Hubbard’s conviction was entered by a general court-martial, which has since dissolved, not in federal court. The court rejected Hubbard’s contentions that the district court had the power to grant his petition for DNA testing under the IPA or that the IPA should nonetheless be construed to allow him to petition for DNA testing in the district court because he would otherwise have no forum in which to seek his relief. The IPA, unlike the federal habeas statutes, does not provide a procedural mechanism for prisoners convicted by courts-martial to seek collateral relief in federal court.
Court Description: Innocence Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of a petition brought by U.S. Army Private Clifford Hubbard seeking DNA testing under the Innocence Protection Act (“IPA”). In 1982, a court-martial convicted Hubbard of murder and sentenced him to life in prison. He sought DNA testing under the IPA to prove his innocence. The panel held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the district court was not the court that entered the judgment of conviction. Rather, Hubbard’s conviction was entered by a general court-martial, which has since dissolved, not in federal court. The panel rejected Hubbard’s contention that the district court had the power to grant his petition for DNA testing under the IPA. The panel also rejected Hubbard’s contention that the IPA should nonetheless be construed to allow him to petition for DNA testing in the district court because he would otherwise have no forum in which to seek his relief. The panel held that the IPA, unlike the federal habeas statutes, does not provide a procedural mechanism for prisoners convicted by courts-martial to seek collateral relief in federal court. HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES 3 Concurring, Judge Friedland joined by Judges Nguyen and Owens, wrote to urge Congress to amend the IPA to explicitly provide servicemembers convicted by courts- martial the same avenues for post-conviction DNA testing afforded to other prisoners.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.