825 F. Supp. 2d 200
D.D.C.2011Background
- Petitioner Anthony Lamont Davis is incarcerated serving DC superior court sentences for murder and related firearms offenses.
- He filed a habeas petition on May 12, 2010, which the Court dismissed on March 27, 2011 as untimely.
- Davis argues that other state post-conviction and collateral proceedings tolled the statute of limitations.
- The Court analyzes timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and tolling under § 2244(d)(2) and equity.
- Petitioner submitted a list of dates (Ex. A) alleging additional tolling events through 2009.
- The Court treats the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion and denies relief, keeping the petition untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion is a Rule 59(e) reconsideration | Davis: seeks reconsideration of dismissal. | Cross opposes relief; timely as Rule 59(e) motion. | Motion treated as Rule 59(e); timely filed. |
| Whether tolling from state proceedings renders the petition timely | Davis contends tolling from additional proceedings should revive timeliness. | Respondent argues tolling does not rescue untimely filing when final conviction date is prior to tolling. | Even with tolling, petition remains untimely. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the deadline | Davis contends equitable tolling due to attorney abandonment and ongoing proceedings. | No basis for tolling beyond the period already considered; end date remains 1/1/2006. | Equitable tolling does not render timely; petition untimely. |
| Whether new tolling dates reset the one-year clock | Davis asserts new dates show less than one year without pending proceedings at certain times. | New dates still leave more than one year of gap outside tolling. | New dates do not make the petition timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 59(e) motions require intervening change or new evidence, or to prevent injustice)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (prison mailbox rule for timeliness of filings)
- S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2010) (distinguishes Rule 59(e) timing from Rule 60(b))
- Davis v. Cross, 774 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2011) (prior denial of habeas petition as untimely under § 2244(d))