(HC) Burton v. Parama, 2:14-cv-02602

Petitioner Burton was found guilty after a prison disciplinary hearing (assault on a peace officer) on July 26, 2012 and assessed 90 days loss of credit. Administrative remedies were exhausted on January 9, 2013.
For statute-of-limitations purposes the disciplinary adjudication became final January 9, 2013; the federal one-year limitations period began January 10, 2013 and, absent tolling, expired January 11, 2014.
Burton filed his first state habeas petition on June 24, 2014 (after the limitations period), later pursued additional state petitions and a California Supreme Court petition; the California Supreme Court denied review October 15, 2014.
Burton filed a federal §2254 petition on November 6, 2014. Respondent moved to dismiss as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).
Burton argued for statutory and equitable tolling, including that (1) an earlier §1983 suit tolled limitations and (2) mental impairment (placement in EOP beginning April 2014 and past incapacity findings) entitled him to equitable tolling.
The magistrate judge found the petition untimely, held the §1983 suit did not toll §2244(d), and rejected equitable tolling because Burton did not show mental impairment prevented timely filing during the relevant period (Jan 2013–Jan 2014) or that he exercised due diligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Burton's federal §2254 petition barred by the one-year limitation?	Burton filed federal petition Nov 6, 2014 but argued tolling makes it timely.	Respondent says limitations ran Jan 2014 and Burton filed too late.	Petition is time-barred absent tolling (court found it untimely).
Are Burton's state habeas filings properly filed and do they statutorily toll §2244(d)?	Burton relies on state petitions filed June–July 2014 to toll federal limitations.	Respondent argues state petitions were filed after the federal limitations expired so cannot save timeliness.	State filings were filed after expiration and do not render the federal petition timely.
Does earlier §1983 litigation toll the §2244(d) limitations period?	Burton contends the §1983 action (filed Jan 28, 2013; dismissed Feb 14, 2014) should toll the limitations period.	Respondent says §1983 does not toll §2244(d).	Court held §1983 suit does not toll §2244(d).
Is Burton entitled to equitable tolling based on mental impairment?	Burton asserts mental impairment (EOP placement April 2014; prior incapacity findings) prevented timely filing.	Respondent contends Burton produced no evidence mental impairment prevented filing during Jan 2013–Jan 2014 or that he acted diligently.	Court rejected equitable tolling: Burton failed to show extraordinary impairment during the limitations period or due diligence.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling available in §2244(d) when extraordinary circumstances and diligence shown)
Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit two-part test for equitable tolling based on mental impairment)
Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061 (prison disciplinary challenges: limitations begins after final denial of administrative appeals)
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (definition of a "properly filed" state post-conviction application)
Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3 (state filing-time bars are conditions to being "properly filed")
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (untimely state petitions are not "properly filed" for tolling)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (no tolling while certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court is pending)
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (tolling while state collateral proceedings are properly pending but not for unreasonable gaps)
Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003 (definition of "pending" for state collateral proceedings)
Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (no tolling between different sets of collateral applications)