Anthony Smith v. Ron Davis
953 F.3d 582
9th Cir.2020Background
- Anthony Smith exhausted direct review in California; the California Supreme Court summarily denied his petition on March 12, 2014 and his conviction became final on June 10, 2014 (no certiorari sought).
- Smith learned of the denial from family around May 10, 2014 and his court‑appointed appellate attorney mailed Smith the appellate record and a letter ending representation on August 15, 2014 (66 days after finality).
- AEDPA’s one‑year statute of limitations ran from June 10, 2014 and thus expired June 10, 2015; Smith filed a pro se federal habeas petition on August 14, 2015.
- Smith sought equitable tolling for the 66‑day period his attorney delayed returning the record; the State moved to dismiss as untimely because the petition was filed after AEDPA’s deadline.
- The district court (adopting the magistrate judge) denied tolling, finding Smith was not diligent in using the ~10 months after he received the record to file; a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed and the en banc court heard the case.
- The en banc Ninth Circuit refused to adopt a per se "stop‑clock" rule and affirmed dismissal: equitable tolling requires reasonable diligence before, during, and after the impediment, and Smith failed that test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for equitable tolling of AEDPA (stop‑clock vs. case‑specific) | Smith: adopt a stop‑clock rule — time tolled during impediment is simply added to the limitations period regardless of later diligence | State: equitable tolling requires case‑specific analysis and sustained diligence; stop‑clock improperly substitutes judges’ time estimates for Congress’s 1‑year rule | Court: rejects stop‑clock; equitable tolling must be applied under traditional equity; courts must assess diligence case‑by‑case, not automatically add tolled days |
| Meaning/scope of Holland’s “pursuing his rights diligently” requirement | Smith: diligence only required to remove the impediment (i.e., while extraordinary circumstance exists) | State: diligence must be shown before, during, and after the impediment, up to the filing date | Court: adopts State’s view — a petitioner must show reasonable diligence throughout, up to filing (not merely in remedying the impediment) |
| Causation — did the extraordinary circumstance prevent timely filing? | Smith: attorney’s withholding of the file for 66 days was an extraordinary impediment that prevented timely filing during that interval | State: even if an impediment existed, Smith still had ~10 months after receiving the file and has not shown the impediment caused the overall late filing | Court: assumed the 66‑day delay could be an extraordinary circumstance but held Smith failed to show it caused the late filing because he was not reasonably diligent after receiving the file |
| Application to Smith’s petition (entitlement to tolling / timeliness) | Smith: entitlement to tolling for 66 days; petition therefore timely | State: petition untimely; Smith did not use available time diligently | Court: affirmed dismissal — Smith did not allege or demonstrate reasonable diligence after receiving the record, so equitable tolling was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (establishes two‑part equitable tolling test: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (diligence required and court may consider pre‑ and post‑impediment conduct)
- Socop‑Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (adopted a stop‑clock tolling approach for certain claims — later questioned)
- Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (tolled limitations during state action; discussed in stop‑clock analyses)
- Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) (interprets “tolling” as suspending/pausing the clock and discusses the mechanics of calculating tolled periods)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasizes flexible, fact‑specific equitable tolling and the causation inquiry)
- Fue v. Biter, 842 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (standard of review and acceptance of petitioner’s factual allegations for tolling analysis)