Anthony Butler v. David Long
752 F.3d 1177
9th Cir.2014Background
- Butler was convicted of attempted premeditated murder in Los Angeles County (2005).
- California appellate and Supreme Court proceedings followed before AEDPA clock started on 12/12/2006.
- Butler filed a first federal habeas petition on 10/5/2008 (signed); it was dismissed 11/14/2008 without leave to amend the mixed petition.
- Butler filed a second federal habeas petition on 9/21/2009, raising five grounds (one new; four overlapping).
- The district court treated the first petition as mixed and dismissed it without opportunity to amend, and later denied the second petition as untimely.
- The panel held Butler is entitled to equitable tolling due to the district court’s erroneous dismissal, and remanded to determine exhaustion/relationship-back or tolling for other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable tolling for first petition dismissal without leave to amend | Butler argues tolling from 11/14/2008 to 9/21/2009. | Warden argues tolling not appropriate and issues are untimely. | Equitable tolling awarded; district court erred by not allowing amendment. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed mixed petition without amendment | Jefferson/Henderson require leave to amend before dismissal. | Sherwood supports dismissal without amendment as proper procedure. | District court erred; must grant leave to amend before dismissal. |
| Timeliness of claims after tolling and relationship-back | At least one claim (failure to instruct on manslaughter) is timely; others may relate back or be tolled. | Untimeliness of other claims remains or is unproven. | Remand to determine which claims are timely, exhausted, relate back, or tollable. |
| Exhaustion requirement and final disposition of second petition | Second petition exhausted/raised five grounds; one new; seeks relief. | Second petition may be time-barred absent tolling. | Need remand to assess exhaustion status and relation to first petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (requires dismissal of mixed petitions with leave to amend)
- Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (necessitates opportunity to amend before dismissal)
- Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2013) ( governs amendment before dismissal for mixed petitions)
- Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983) (precludes outright dismissal without leave to amend when no direct state appeal pending)
- Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (AEDPA tolling on a per-claim basis)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (mailbox rule for pro se filings)
- Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses filing dates and mailbox rule context)