Al Shamoon Thompson v. Administrator New Jersey Stat
701 F. App'x 118
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Thompson was convicted in New Jersey in May 1997 of murder and related offenses and sentenced to life plus 25 years with 40 years parole ineligibility.
- After the New Jersey Supreme Court declined direct review in October 1999, Thompson pursued state post-conviction relief (PCR) beginning with a petition dated April 25, 2000 (filed May 17, 2000).
- State courts denied relief at various stages between 2006 and 2012; proceedings included remand, multiple appeals, counsel-led and pro se filings, and a petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court granted as timely in January 2012 and denied February 2, 2012.
- Thompson filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 10, 2012. The district court dismissed it as untimely under AEDPA, finding 637 days of non‑tolled time.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) applied, recalculated six critical intervals between state-court adverse decisions and subsequent filings, and concluded at most 326 days elapsed (so the habeas petition was timely).
- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for consideration of the petition’s merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson’s § 2254 petition was timely under AEDPA given his state PCR activity | Thompson argued statutory tolling applied while properly filed PCR matters were pending, so fewer than 365 non‑tolled days elapsed | State argued multiple gaps between state filings were not tolled, producing more than 365 non‑tolled days and an untimely federal petition | Court held AEDPA tolled during the cited state proceedings; recalculation showed at most 326 non‑tolled days, so petition was timely |
| Whether pro se filings after counsel-filed certification petition removed tolling or jurisdiction | Thompson argued pro se filings were not accepted by the NJ Supreme Court and did not terminate the pending counsel-filed petition | State argued pro se withdrawals/stays meant no PCR application was pending during those intervals | Court held NJ Supreme Court refused to file the pro se pleadings and counsel’s petition remained pending; only 8 days counted in that interval |
| How to treat state procedural time allowances (e.g., N.J. Ct. R. 2:4-1 and 2:12-3) in counting non‑tolled days | Thompson relied on state rules and court practice to argue tolling continued until those rules’ appeal windows expired or filings were accepted as timely | State used earlier adverse decision dates to start non‑tolled intervals | Court applied New Jersey rules (e.g., 45‑day appeal windows) and excluded time while filings were properly filed or accepted as timely, reducing counted days |
| Whether out‑of‑time motion accepted by state court is "properly filed" for tolling | Thompson argued the NJ Supreme Court’s acceptance of his out‑of‑time reconsideration motion showed it was properly filed and tolled the period | State contended the period between denial and federal filing was not tolled | Court held that acceptance as timely indicated a properly filed application; time between filing the request and the state decision was tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80 (3d Cir. 2013) (date conviction becomes final for AEDPA is after certiorari period)
- Douglas v. Horn, 359 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2004) (state law governs whether a state application is "properly filed")
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (application is pending during timely interval between adverse lower‑court decision and filing of notice of appeal)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 1999) (remand to district court where merits were not reached is prudent)
- Fernandez v. Sternes, 227 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 2000) (state granting leave for out‑of‑time appeal affects tolling calculation)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 658 A.2d 1230 (N.J. 1995) (filing a notice of petition vests jurisdiction in appellate court)
- State v. Coon, 715 A.2d 326 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998) (waiver of counsel in PCR context requires inquiry into knowing and intelligent waiver)