2:15-cv-00358
C.D. Cal.Jan 22, 2015Background
- In 2009 Haynes was convicted by a Los Angeles County jury of murder and sentenced to life without parole.
- California Court of Appeal affirmed on February 16, 2011; California Supreme Court denied review on November 16, 2011 (and denied a pro se state habeas petition the same date).
- Haynes did not file a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court; his conviction became final after the 90-day certiorari period expired on February 15, 2012.
- Under AEDPA, the one-year federal habeas limitations period began to run on that date and, absent tolling, expired February 15, 2013.
- Haynes filed state habeas petitions only after that expiration (Court of Appeal July 30, 2014; California Supreme Court September 18, 2014), then signed the federal petition December 23, 2014.
- The magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause because, on the face of the petition and judicially noticeable records, the federal habeas petition appears time-barred unless equitable tolling or actual-innocence exceptions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Haynes's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haynes's federal habeas petition is barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations | Haynes asserts diligence, good cause, extraordinary circumstances (institutional lockdowns, deficient mail), and actual innocence | Petition appears untimely because the one-year period ran from Feb 15, 2012 to Feb 15, 2013; post-expiration state habeas filings cannot revive claims | Court found petition appears time-barred on its face and ordered Haynes to show cause why action should not be dismissed |
| Whether post-conviction state habeas filings toll the AEDPA limitations period after it already expired | Haynes implies state filings should affect timeliness | Respondent relies on precedent that state filings filed after AEDPA expiration do not revive an expired federal limitations period | Court relied on precedent that late state petitions cannot rejuvenate stale federal claims |
| Whether Haynes has pleaded facts sufficient to invoke equitable tolling | Haynes claims due diligence and extraordinary circumstances but provides only boilerplate assertions | Respondent notes lack of specific factual showing connecting alleged circumstances to delay | Court found Haynes’s conclusory assertions insufficient and invited a factual response within 30 days |
| Whether the actual-innocence gateway (McQuiggin) applies to overcome the statute of limitations | Haynes asserts actual innocence | Respondent requires credible new evidence of actual innocence to excuse timeliness bar | Court stated Haynes asserted actual innocence but failed to support it on the face of the petition; ordered Haynes to show cause and provide supporting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling available in appropriate cases)
- Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2000) (state habeas filed after expiration of AEDPA limitations does not revive federal habeas claims)
- Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may raise AEDPA timeliness sua sponte but must afford petitioner an opportunity to respond)