Freddy Curiel v. Amy Miller
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4436
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Freddy Curiel was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder and street terrorism and sentenced to life without parole plus 25 years in 2006.
- Direct-review ended when the California Supreme Court denied review on June 11, 2008; AEDPA’s one-year federal filing deadline thus ran from September 9, 2008 to September 9, 2009.
- Curiel filed three state habeas petitions (Orange County Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California Supreme Court) in 2009; the Superior Court and Court of Appeal denied them as untimely and/or unmeritorious; the California Supreme Court denied Curiel’s petition in a two-line order with “See” citations to Swain and Duvall.
- Curiel received his trial file from counsel in March 2009; he filed his federal §2254 petition on March 8, 2010, after the AEDPA deadline.
- The district court dismissed Curiel’s federal petition as untimely and denied a COA; this Court issued a COA limited to timeliness/tolling questions.
Issues
| Issue | Curiel's Argument | Miller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Curiel is entitled to statutory tolling under §2244(d)(2) during state habeas pendency | Curiel argued his state petitions were "properly filed" and tolled AEDPA | State argued the state courts found petitions untimely so they were not properly filed | Denied — California Supreme Court’s unexplained denial presumed to adopt lower court timeliness ruling; no statutory tolling |
| Whether the California Supreme Court’s two-line denial with "See" citations to Swain and Duvall counts as rejecting the lower court’s timeliness finding | Curiel argued the citations could indicate the state high court addressed the merits and found the petitions timely | Miller argued the terse citation did not overcome presumption that the higher court silently adopted lower court’s timeliness ruling | Held: The two-line order with ambiguous citations did not constitute "strong evidence" to rebut presumption that the petition was untimely |
| Whether Curiel is entitled to equitable tolling based on counsel’s delay in delivering his trial file | Curiel argued counsel’s delay prevented timely filing and thus equitable tolling is warranted | Miller argued Curiel received the file in March 2009 and had months to file or file a protective federal petition; pro se status is not an extraordinary circumstance | Denied — Curiel failed to show extraordinary circumstances making timely filing impossible or that counsel’s conduct caused the untimeliness |
| Whether the federal petition was timely overall | Curiel argued tolling (statutory or equitable) made the March 2010 filing timely | Miller argued no tolling applied and filing was after AEDPA deadline | Held: Petition untimely; district court dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (statutory tolling ends when a state petition is untimely)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (presume later unexplained denial adopted lower court’s reasoning absent strong evidence)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit standard that extraordinary circumstances must make timely filing impossible)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (equitable tolling is a very high threshold)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (California Supreme Court merits-denial does not automatically show timeliness)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (limitations on presuming timeliness from summary state-court denials)
- Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983 (summary denials without "on the merits" language less likely to show timeliness)
- Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056 (look to highest state court’s view to determine timeliness under §2244(d)(2))