Brian Boulb v. United States, 818 F.3d 334

Background

In 2008 Boulb pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to unlawful possession of methamphetamine manufacturing materials and was sentenced to four years; he later sought transcripts and filed postconviction motions.
In 2012–2013 Boulb pleaded guilty in federal court to methamphetamine-related offenses and was sentenced (judgment entered Feb. 20, 2013); the federal sentence relied in part on the 2008 state conviction to classify him as a career offender.
Boulb filed a pro se appeal and motion to withdraw his 2008 plea in state court; the Illinois appellate court dismissed the appeal in 2014 for procedural untimeliness.
While his state appeal was pending, Boulb submitted an affidavit to the federal court alleging prosecutorial misconduct and that he was intellectually disabled and functionally illiterate; he attached an "Inmate Education Data Transcript."
Boulb filed a § 2255 habeas petition on June 2014, more than a year after his federal judgment; the district court dismissed it as time-barred under § 2255’s one-year limitations period and did not hold an evidentiary hearing on his claimed mental incompetence.
On appeal Boulb argued the district court erred by refusing an evidentiary hearing to determine whether equitable tolling applied due to his alleged mental disability; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling for alleged mental incompetence	Boulb: his asserted intellectual disability and attached inmate education transcript justify an evidentiary hearing to determine if equitable tolling excuses his late § 2255 filing	Government/District Court: petition is untimely and Boulb's allegations are conclusory; the attached transcript is indecipherable and provides no corroborating evidence of incapacity	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; allegations were conclusory and unsupported, so no hearing required
Whether mental incompetence can support equitable tolling under § 2255	Boulb: mental incompetence can excuse delay (relies on Davis)	Government: requires specific factual support, not bare assertions	Court: agrees mental incompetence can support tolling but requires specific, corroborated facts; Boulb did not meet that standard
Whether petitioner had to tie mental disability to filing delay in district court	Boulb: requested hearing on mental incompetence though did not explicitly link disability to delay below	Government: petitioner failed to present or develop that link in district court	Held: petitioner need not always explicitly state the link, but here pleadings did not make the incompetence realistically apparent; no hearing warranted
Whether equitable tolling or procedural default issues preclude relief	Boulb: seeks remand for hearing to resolve tolling and thus avoid time-bar	Government: untimely; no other justification presented	Held: because no tolling, petition time-barred; court need not resolve procedural-default question

Key Cases Cited

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling available where petitioner shows diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Davis v. Humphreys, 747 F.3d 497 (7th Cir.) (2014) (mental incompetence can justify remand for evidentiary hearing to determine tolling)
Hutchings v. United States, 618 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearings in § 2255 cases)
Bruce v. United States, 256 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2001) (vague, conclusory, or incredible allegations do not warrant evidentiary hearings)
Sandoval v. United States, 574 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2009) (hearing required when petitioner alleges facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief)
Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling is rare and reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2002) (petitioner's lack of specific factual detail can justify denial of evidentiary hearing)