Carter v. Hodge
726 F.3d 917
7th Cir.2013Background
- Carter, an Illinois prison inmate, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 that was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois in June 2010 and denied on February 9-10, 2011.
- Carter never received notice of the district court’s denial; the clerk’s office had incorrect information indicating no action had occurred.
- On March 22, 2012, Carter was correctly informed the petition had been denied in February 2011 and promptly filed a notice of appeal and a request for a COA on April 16, 2012.
- The district court did not docket the filings until May 31, 2012; under Rule 4, April 16 is the official filing date per Houston v. Lack and Rule 4(c)(1).
- Rule 4(a)(6) allows reopening of the appeal period if notice was not received within 21 days, but it must be sought within 180 days after the judgment or within 14 days of notice, whichever is first; Rule 58(a) judgment timing affects the timelines.
- The district judge’s denial was not entered on a separate Rule 58(a) judgment document, but a minute entry of dismissal existed; the court’s analysis treats the 150-day Rule 58 judgment-deeming provision as governing the timing, subject to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling can apply to the 150-day judgment-deeming rule for appeals | Carter contends tolling is allowed where clerk misled and information was delayed. | Carter asserts tolling should not override the jurisdictional deadline. | Equitable tolling can apply to the 150-day rule; appeal deemed timely. |
| Whether equitable tolling can apply to jurisdictional notice deadlines under Rule 4(a)(6) | Equitable tolling should excuse the delay due to lack of notice. | Jurisdictional deadlines are non-tollable. | Equitable tolling does not apply to jurisdictional notice deadlines. |
| Whether the district court’s lack of a separate Rule 58(a) judgment affects timeliness | The lack of a separate judgment can delay the clock improperly. | Rule 58(a) timing is the controlling factor and can be deemed satisfied by the proceedings. | Judgment timing is governed by Rule 58(a) deeming provision; tolling available for timely appeal. |
| Whether Carter's April 16 filing can be treated as timely under equitable tolling | Clerk’s miscommunication justified tolling to the first accessible day. | Untimely filing cannot be saved absent proper tolling. | The filing is timely due to equitable tolling of the 150-day period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (filing date for notices of appeal when delivered by prison authorities)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional deadlines cannot be saved by equitable tolling)
- In re IFC Credit Corp., 663 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (limits on jurisdiction and tolling considerations)
- Perry v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 73 Pension Fund, 585 F.3d 358 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 58 and 4(a)(7) interplay and finality considerations)
- Rush University Medical Center v. Leavitt, 535 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008) (noticeability of district court compliance with Rule 58 and timing)
- Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling doctrine for late filings)
- Yuan Gao v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling in immigration/habeas contexts)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (judgment timing and waivers of separate-judgment requirement)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (jurisdiction and competence of the federal courts)