|
|
|
| Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling |
|
Ellibee v. Roberts
, No. 04-3269 (February 16, 2005) (Unpublished): Habeas petition dismissed as time barred under the AEDPA; but case notable for COA grant on statute of limitations/equitable tolling issue. State court allowed public defender to withdraw from Ellibee's case and in a written order stated it would appoint new counsel but never followed through on this promise. Seems grossly unfair, but circuit found no equitable tolling because Ellibee did not diligently pursue his state appeal. Basically, the circuit held that Ellibee should have been more diligent in trying to advance his case.
|
|
|
Griffin v. Rogers
, Warden, No. 04-3302 (6th Cir., March 3, 2005) (Recommended for Publication): Federal habeas case in which court discusses, and grants, equitable tolling under the AEDPA in-depth and recognizes authority for the stay-and-abeyance procedure on mixed petitions. Scintillating stuff.
|
|
|
Keenan v. Bagley,
No. 03-3834 (6th Cir., March 10, 2005) (Recommended for Publication): Capital habeas case dealing with the doctrine of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under the AEDPA and remanding to the district court to determine whether equitable tolling is proper in the case.
|
|
|
Johnson v. United States,
No. 03-9685 (U.S., April 4, 2005): AEDPA statute of limitations case. Federal prisoner was convicted of federal drug crime, but sentence was enhanced based on two prior state court convictions. Three years after federal sentence, Johnson filed post-conviction in the state court and got relief--complete vacatur of the priors. Three months later, he filed a sec. 2255 petition, arguing that the order of vacatur by the state court was a previously undiscoverable fact and triggered anew the 1-year limitations period. The Court agreed with this part; but, denied ultimate relief because Johnson did not act with "due diligence" in obtaining the order of vacatur after entry of judgment in the federal case. 5-4 decision, with strange bedfellows in the dissent: Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia and Ginsburg.
|
|
|
Pace v. DiGuglielmo,
No. 03-9627 (U.S., April 27, 2005): Court holds that a state post-conviction petition filed out of time will not normally toll the one-year statute of limitations requirement of the AEDPA; however, the Court appears to hold open the possibility that some out of time petitions will toll the one-year rule through "equitable tolling" but poor Pace was not diligent enough in this case. Finally, the Court suggested that a petitioner who is unsure about the validity of his state court remedies may file a "protective" habeas petition within the one year limitations period and seek to hold it in abeyance while he hashes out the issues in state court.
|
|
|
Mayle v. Felix,
No. 04-563 (U.S., June 23, 2005): AEDPA case interpreting the one year statute of limitations provision. Felix filed a habeas petition in time, alleging a Sixth Amendment claim from the introduction of a videotape. After the one year limitations period expired, he amended his habeas petition to include a Fifth Amendment claim, arguing that this claim "related back" to the original, timely, petition under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment claim was time barred and did not relate back because it was a new claim supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those set forth in the original pleading. NOTE: this case establishes a procedural trap in drafting habeas petitions and the lesson appears to be to include all claims prior to the one year limitation or they will be barred.
|
|
|
Dodd v. United States,
No. 04-5286 (June 20, 2005): Yet another case dealing with the one year statute of limitations period in habeas cases, this time holding that in a sec. 2255 case the one year starts when the Supreme Court recognizes the right asserted--not from the time a court declares the right retroactively applicable. More than one year after the Supreme Court case giving rise to the claim, the Eleventh Circuit held the case retroactively applicable to habeas petitioners. Nevertheless, such claims are time-barred if not filed within one year of the date that the Supreme Court decided the case giving rise to the claim.
|
|
|
Robinson v. Golder,
No. 04-1323 (10th Cir., March 30, 2006) (Published): State prisoner seeking federal habeas relief gets his Petition dismissed as time-barred under the AEDPA's strict one year statute of limitations. Good discussion of the this issue and the applicable standards and rules.
|
|
|
Pratt v. Mullin,
No. 05-6008 (10th Cir., April 7, 2006) (Unpublished): AEDPA one-year statute of limitations winner where the magistrate below simply mis-calculated the time that the SOL was tolled during the pendancy of state post-conviction proceedings. This case involved a leap year in which February had 29 days instead of 28 and thus Pratt's Petition was filed on the very day it was due. Very lucky for Pratt and decent discussion of the legal issues in calculating the time under the AEDPA for us.
|
|
|
Dulworth v. Evans,
No. 05-6351 (10th Cir., April 4, 2006) (Published): This case presents an issue of first impression in the Circuit: Does the AEDPA's one year statute of limitations apply to habeas petitions challenging administrative decisions of correctional authorities rather than the decision of a court? The panel noted a circuit split on this issue and sided with the circuits holding that the one years SOL does apply to prison administrative decisions (the Seventh Circuit is the lone holdout). Having decided that issue, the panel also held that the limitations period begins to run when the final agency action occurs (rather than the time the inmate is made aware of the prison's action).
|
|
|
Day v. McDonough,
No. 04-1324 (U.S., April 25, 2006): AEDPA Statute of Limitations. In its answer to Day's habeas Petition, the State conceded that Day had complied with the one-year limitations provision under the AEDPA. An enterprising magistrate re-calculated the time and corrected the State, found that the Petition was time-barred, and recommended dismissal. The District Court agreed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Court affirmed in a horrendous decision that gives the State a pass on waiving the SOL defense. The holding is that the magistrate has authority, on its own initiative, to dismiss the Petition even when the State has answered and did not contest the timeliness of the filing. The Court characterized the record as showing that the State made no intelligent waiver, merely a miscalculation that the magistrate could review. Strange authorship of opinions here with Justice Ginsburg in the lead and Justices Scalia/Thomas/Breyer in dissent, arguing that the Court should apply the Federal Rules governing these cases.
|
|
|
Prieto v. Quarterman,
No. 05-70035 (5th Cir., July 18, 2006): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: Winner on equitable tolling grounds when the District Court granted Prieto's motion for extension of time to file his habeas petition but the extension exceeded the one-year statute of limitations. The panel held that Prieto was allowed to rely upon the District Court's order and did so in good faith.
|
|
|
Howard v. Ulibarri,
No. 05-2346 (10th Cir., August 9, 2006) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: For purposes of the one-year statute of limitations under the AEDPA, the statute is tolled by a motion to modify sentence under New Mexico law. This decision appears to create a circuit split because the Fourth Circuit held that a similar motion does not toll the statute.
|
|
|
Wickham v. Friel,
No. 05-4077 (10th Cir., February 15, 2007) (Unpublished): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: Nice winner from the Circuit on the issue of the one year statute of limitations under the AEDPA involving a claim relying upon discovery of the factual predicate supporting the claim, in this case evidence that social services records indicated that the complaining witness may have been untruthful in her allegations of sexual assault.
|
|
|
Lawrence v. Florida,
No. 05-8820 (U.S., February 20, 2007): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: The one year SOL under the AEDPA is not tolled by a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Fleming v. Evans,
No. 06-6110 (10th Cir., April 3, 2007) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: The Circuit grants Fleming a COA on whether two claims are time-barred or are subject to equitable tolling, one of them on the basis of egregious attorney misconduct in affirmatively misleading him regarding the pursuit of legal action.
|
|
|
Pierson v. Dormire,
No. 06-2545 (8th Cir., April 4, 2007): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: Under the AEDPA there is a one year statute of limitations in which a state prisoner must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the date the state appeal becomes final. This is usually accomplished when the state supreme court (or highest court of review) either decides the case or denies review. The Supreme Court allows a litigant 90 days to file a petition for certiorari; thus, the one year generally does not begin until the 90 days has passed. But what happens when a state prisoner is denied in an intermediate state appellate court and does not seek review in the state supreme court? Is he entitled to the 90 days he would receive if he did so? The circuits are split. The Seventh Circuit says yes. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits say no. In this case, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit and held that Pierson is entitled to the 90 days and thus his petition was filed timely.
|
|
|
Robbins v. Sec. for the Dep't of Corrections,
No. 05-14992 (11th Cir., April 3, 2007): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: The one year statute of limitations under the AEDPA is triggered when both the sentence and the conviction become final, such as when a case is remanded for re-sentencing.
|
|
Mitchell v. Jones
No. CIV-06-503-RAW-KEW (E.D. Okla., February 20, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: In this federal habeas case brought by an Oklahoma inmate, Mitchell alleged a Brady violation when the State failed to turn over a videotape of an interview with a co-defendant that had some very exculpatory information on it (this was admitted by the prosecutor). One problem: Mitchell filed his habeas petition more than four years after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Solution: convincing Judge Ronald White that the Court of Criminal Appeals was incorrect in placing the burden of discovery of the videotape on Mitchell instead of on the prosecution. Thus, because Mitchell could not have discovered the videotape (the factual predicate of the claim) through the exercise of due diligence prior to the expiration of the SOL, his petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2244(d)(1)(D).
|
|
Harris v. Carter
No. 06-35313 (9th Cir., February 8, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Statute of Limitations/Equitable Tolling: This is a case where the panel grants Harris "equitable tolling" in order to allow him to file out-of-time his federal habeas petition because he relied on then-existing circuit precedent which was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court. Something tells me that we need to watch this case carefully because it might be short-lived. I can see SCOTUS summarily vacating this opinion in the near future.
|
|
|
Click here for more...
|
|
|
