Griffith v. Rednour
614 F.3d 328
7th Cir.2010Background
- Griffith, condemned for murder, exhausted state post-conviction remedies before seeking federal habeas relief.
- Illinois appellate denial of post-conviction relief occurred July 13, 2005; Griffith filed a notice of intent to file a petition for leave to appeal on August 1, 2005.
- Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to file instanter due to counsel illness, filing granted September 13, 2005; merits denied December 1, 2005.
- Griffith filed federal habeas petition on November 30, 2006, about 364 days after state decision.
- Question: should the state court’s timely extension of time toll the federal AEDPA deadline during the gap before final state resolution?
- Panel held no tolling for the two-week gap; dissent argues state-extension should toll under Carey, Evans, and Jimenez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state grant of instanter timing tolls AEDPA | Griffith's PLA timely under state law; tolls federal clock. | No tolling for the interim gap; timing not pending. | No tolling; panel decision affirmed. |
| Proper interpretation of CAREY/EVANS for pending period | Treat state extension as pending; retroactive tolling appropriate. | Follow panel: no pending period during gap. | Carey/Evans support tolling during extension period. |
| Effect of Jimenez on retroactive pendency | Jimenez allows retroactive reset of pendency when state reopens direct review. | Jimenez does not apply or is distinguishable. | Jimenez rationale supports tolling when state reopens review. |
| Policy consequences of tolling approach | Avoid traps and confusion; align federal tolling with state decisions. | Limit tolling to prevent delay in cases. | Advocates for aligning with Carey/ Evans to respect state decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (pending state post-conviction process remains pending until final resolution)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (time during which state postconviction review is pending incl. timely notice of appeal)
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 681 (2009) (state court reopenings retroactively affect finality for 2244(d)(1))
- Fernandez v. Sternes, 227 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 2000) (notion of gaps in state proceedings; related dissents on pendency)