(DP) Cowan v. Cates
1:19-cv-00745-ADA
E.D. Cal.Mar 30, 2020Background
- Petitioner Robert Wesley Cowan was convicted of two first‑degree murders and sentenced to death in 1996; California Supreme Court affirmed on automatic appeal and U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- State habeas proceedings concluded with a summary denial by the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2019; Cowan filed for federal habeas relief beginning May 28–29, 2019.
- Federal counsel was appointed (Office of the Federal Defender) and a scheduling order set a limitations deadline of May 15, 2020 for the federal petition.
- On March 16, 2020 Cowan moved to equitably toll the AEDPA deadline to August 13, 2020, arguing COVID‑19 and related emergency responses impeded counsel’s ability to investigate, consult experts, travel, and meet with Cowan.
- The respondent (Warden Ronald Davis) filed a non‑opposition; the court found the case legally and factually complex (core record ~16,781 pages) and that the pandemic constituted an extraordinary impediment despite Cowan’s diligence.
- The court vacated the April 7, 2020 hearing and granted equitable tolling, extending the filing deadline to August 13, 2020 and leaving the rest of the scheduling order in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COVID‑19 justifies equitable tolling of AEDPA deadline | COVID‑19 and emergency responses prevented counsel from completing a diligent, timely petition (investigation, experts, visits) | No opposition filed | Court granted equitable tolling to Aug 13, 2020 |
| Whether Cowan acted with reasonable diligence | Counsel acted diligently before and during the pandemic; impediments were external and unforeseeable | No opposition / no contention of lack of diligence | Court found Cowan reasonably diligent |
| Whether the circumstances were "extraordinary" and beyond Cowan’s control | Pandemic and attendant restrictions are extraordinary and impeded counsel’s work | No opposition; respondent did not show prejudice | Court found circumstances extraordinary and justified tolling |
| Whether the State would be prejudiced by a short delay | Delay is short and will not impair State’s ability to defend the conviction | Respondent did not assert prejudice | Court found no showing of prejudice and granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (standards for tolling under AEDPA)
- Espinoza‑Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing diligence and tolling burden)
- Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997) (pre‑petition equitable tolling may apply where extraordinary circumstances prevent timely filing)
- McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) (role of counsel in capital habeas preparation is critical)
- Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner must show diligence after the start of extraordinary circumstances)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) (requirement to conduct diligent investigation for initial federal petition)
- Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (external forces, not petitioner’s lack of diligence, can justify tolling)
- Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonable effort standard for equitable tolling)
- Cadet v. State of Florida Department of Corrections, 853 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2017) (equitable tolling is rare and applied sparingly)