Agofsky v. Jones
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15430
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner (federal prisoner) sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an earlier Oklahoma conviction based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence, and filed a simultaneous state post-conviction application.
- The federal petition contained no exhausted claims (an unmixed petition); petitioner filed it protectively two days before AEDPA’s one-year deadline ran.
- Petitioner asked the district court for a stay under Rhines v. Weber so he could exhaust state remedies without losing federal review; the magistrate judge recommended denial and dismissal without prejudice.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, denied a stay, dismissed the petition without prejudice, and declined a certificate of appealability; petitioner appealed and obtained COA on the stay denial.
- The Tenth Circuit considered (1) whether Rhines stay-and-abeyance applies to wholly unexhausted (unmixed) protective petitions and (2) whether petitioner showed good cause for a stay given later Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhines stay-and-abeyance may apply to an unmixed (entirely unexhausted) petition | Rhines and Pace permit protective federal petitions and stays when AEDPA time constraints risk foreclosing federal review | Rhines is limited to mixed petitions and Lundy mandates dismissal to preserve comity/finality | Court: Rhines may be applied to unmixed protective petitions in appropriate circumstances (court exercised discretion to consider Rhines) |
| Whether petitioner showed “good cause” to justify a Rhines stay | Short time left on AEDPA clock (filed two days before deadline) and reliance on protective filing constitute good cause | McQuiggin provides an equitable actual-innocence exception to AEDPA’s limitations, removing the need for a stay | Court: No good cause here because McQuiggin’s actual-innocence exception can excuse AEDPA time bar, so stay not warranted |
| Effect of McQuiggin v. Perkins on need for a stay | McQuiggin means a credible actual-innocence showing can overcome AEDPA’s limitations, so a stay is unnecessary | Stay still appropriate to preserve ability to return to federal court if state exhaustion fails | Court: McQuiggin undercuts the petitioner’s timing-based excuse; dismissal without prejudice and no stay affirmed |
| Remedy / disposition | Petitioner sought stay and abeyance to exhaust state claims while preserving federal timeliness | State argued dismissal without prejudice appropriate; stay unnecessary | Court affirmed denial of stay and dismissal without prejudice (petitioner can exhaust state remedies and then seek federal relief) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (permits stay-and-abeyance for mixed habeas petitions in limited circumstances)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (requires total exhaustion of state remedies before federal habeas review)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (recognized protective federal petitions to avoid timeliness problems)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (credible showing of actual innocence can overcome AEDPA’s statute of limitations)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (established actual-innocence gateway standard to consider otherwise barred claims)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (discussed freestanding actual-innocence claims and limits on such claims)