Blair v. Zavislan
2:17-cv-00346
| E.D. Wash. | Jan 12, 2018Background
- Petitioner Michelle Blair, a state prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition after exhausting state remedies; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed her convictions on March 7, 2014.
- Under federal law the one-year AEDPA limitations period began to run on June 5, 2014 and expired on June 5, 2015.
- Blair did not file a federal habeas petition until after the limitations period expired; she filed a Washington Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) on September 4, 2015.
- The district court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely; Blair responded asserting diligence, actual innocence, limited law-library access, and closed-custody restrictions.
- The court found no statutory or equitable tolling applicable: a state petition filed after AEDPA expired does not revive the limitations period, and Blair failed to show extraordinary circumstances or diligence for equitable tolling.
- The petition was dismissed as time-barred and the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) | Blair: limitations period began after state-court affirmance; she filed PRP within state deadlines so federal filing should be considered timely | Court/Respondent: AEDPA year began June 5, 2014 and expired June 5, 2015; Blair filed federal petition after expiration | Dismissed: petition untimely; state PRP filed after AEDPA expiration cannot toll or revive the period |
| Statutory tolling for state collateral review | Blair: timely pursued state PRP so collateral review should toll federal limitations | Court: PRP filed on Sept 4, 2015, after AEDPA expired; Ferguson v. Palmateer bars tolling of an already-expired period | Rejected: late state filing does not toll expired AEDPA period |
| Equitable tolling | Blair: restricted movement, limited law-library access, and use of kite system impeded timely filing; asserts diligence and external forces | Court: limited access and custodial restrictions are common and not extraordinary; Blair waited until deadline to file PRP showing lack of diligence | Rejected: Blair failed to show extraordinary circumstances plus diligence required for equitable tolling (Holland standard) |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Blair: (implied) issues worthy of appeal given factual constraints | Court/Respondent: no substantial showing of denial of constitutional right as to timeliness/equitable tolling | Denied: court certified no basis for COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008 (oversight, miscalculation, or negligence do not justify equitable tolling)
- Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (delays caused by petitioner or counsel’s mistakes are not external forces for equitable tolling)
- Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710 (timing for AEDPA limitations period after state-court proceedings)
- Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (computation of AEDPA limitations period)
- Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820 (state collateral petitions filed after AEDPA expiration do not restart limitations period)