Grimes v. Link
3:17-cv-01008
M.D. Penn.Dec 18, 2017Background
- Petitioner Tyler P. Grimes was sentenced on November 21, 2013, did not file a direct appeal, and later sought post-conviction relief under Pennsylvania's PCRA alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related claims.
- Grimes filed at least two PCRA petitions: one pending March 11, 2014–June 26, 2014 (tolled), and a second filed October 30, 2014 and withdrawn March 25, 2015.
- Grimes' federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dated June 7, 2017 (deemed filed that date under Houston v. Lack).
- The respondent moved to dismiss the § 2254 petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
- The district court calculated statutory tolling for the periods the PCRA petitions were pending, found the limitations clock ran for more than one year overall, and concluded the federal petition was filed after the § 2244(d) limitation expired.
- Grimes sought equitable tolling based on diligence and his youth (19 at plea), but the court found no extraordinary circumstances or misconduct preventing timely filing and denied equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimes' § 2254 petition was timely under § 2244(d) | Petition filed June 7, 2017 should be considered timely when accounting for PCRA tolling | Limitations began Dec 21, 2013; after accounting for statutory tolling the § 2254 was filed late | Petition is untimely under § 2244(d) and must be dismissed |
| Effect of state PCRA proceedings on tolling | PCRA pendency tolled limitations during their pendency | Only properly filed/timely PCRA petitions toll; court applied tolling only for actual pending periods | Court applied statutory tolling for the actual PCRA pending intervals and still found petition untimely |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Grimes acted diligently and was only 19, so equitable tolling should apply | No extraordinary circumstances or governmental misconduct; attorney error/withdrawal of PCRAs insufficient | Equitable tolling denied: petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances or diligence required |
| Filing date for habeas petition | Petition deemed filed on June 7, 2017 (prison mailbox rule) | Same; respondent concedes filing date but argues it's late | Court deems June 7, 2017 filing date but finds it outside limitations period |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (prisoner mailbox rule for filing date)
- Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999) (statute of limitations and equitable tolling principles in habeas context)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (limitations commences at conclusion of direct review; tolling during state post-conviction pendency)
- Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001) (untimely state petitions are not "properly filed" for tolling)
- Merritt v. Blaine, 326 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) (federal courts bound by state determination that PCRA was untimely)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (limitations not deferred by possibility of filing certiorari from denial of state collateral relief)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (standard for equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616 (3d Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling discussion)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (equitable tolling does not extend to ordinary excusable neglect)
- Johnson v. Hendricks, 314 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2002) (attorney error is generally not a basis for equitable tolling)