Armando Sossa v. Ralph M. Diaz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18776
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Armando Jose Sossa, a California prisoner convicted of second-degree burglary (2004), filed federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state remedies; his conviction became final January 31, 2006, starting AEDPA’s one-year clock.
- Sossa filed an initial federal habeas petition pro se on February 24, 2008; the magistrate judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim but granted leave to amend with successive extensions, ultimately setting a final deadline of June 9, 2008 and warning that no further extensions would be granted.
- Sossa filed two extension motions citing prison lockdowns and library access; the magistrate granted an extension to June 9, 2008, then rejected a later emergency five-day extension request and ordered it not filed.
- Sossa constructively filed his First Amended Petition (FAP) on June 11, 2008 (prison mailbox rule). The State moved to dismiss as untimely; the magistrate recommended dismissal because the FAP did not "relate back" to the February 24 petition.
- The district court adopted the R&R, dismissed the FAP as untimely, and declined to consider Sossa’s newly raised equitable-tolling argument based on his reliance on the magistrate judge’s extensions; Sossa appealed and the Ninth Circuit granted a COA on timeliness.
- The Ninth Circuit found (1) Sossa reasonably relied on the magistrate judge’s extension and is entitled to equitable tolling at least through June 9, 2008, and (2) his allegations about prison lockdowns/library access warrant remand for further fact development to determine tolling for the two-day delay to June 11, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sossa waived his equitable-tolling claim by raising it first in objections to the R&R | Sossa argued reliance on the magistrate judge’s extension; as a pro se litigant his new argument should be considered | Diaz (State) argued Sossa forfeited/waived the argument by not raising it earlier | Not waived; district court abused discretion by failing to consider the new argument from a pro se litigant |
| Whether reliance on a court order extending the filing deadline can justify equitable tolling | Sossa claims the magistrate judge’s extension affirmatively misled him into believing filing by the court deadline would be timely, warranting equitable tolling | State argued petitioner should have known AEDPA’s deadline and investigate; reliance insufficient | Court held reliance on the magistrate judge’s extension entitled Sossa to equitable tolling from March 12, 2008 through June 9, 2008 |
| Whether Sossa is entitled to equitable tolling for the two-day delay (June 9 to June 11) due to prison lockdowns/lack of library access | Sossa alleged lockdowns, lost paperwork, only late access June 7 with copying errors, and attempted emergency extension — made timely filing impossible | State argued ordinary prison limitations do not constitute extraordinary circumstances and magistrate previously ruled the facts did not warrant tolling | Allegations are sufficient to require further development of the record; remand for factfinding (possible evidentiary hearing) to decide tolling through June 11, 2008 |
| Whether the First Amended Petition "related back" to the initial petition so as to be timely | Sossa argued constructive filing and reliance on extension should preserve timeliness or relation back | State argued the original petition failed to state claims so FAP cannot relate back | The opinion does not revive relation-back; court accepted magistrate’s assumption of statutory tolling for some periods but reversed dismissal based on equitable tolling and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (finality for AEDPA runs after denial of certiorari/review period)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (prison mailbox rule applies to habeas filings)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison mailbox rule premise)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (AEDPA limitations period subject to equitable tolling; two-part test)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004) (district courts not obligated to act as counsel to pro se litigants; equitable tolling if affirmatively misled)
- Prieto v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2006) (granting equitable tolling where district court’s extension misled petitioner about AEDPA deadline)