Hulsey v. Byrne, 3:16-cv-00069

In Sept. 2011 a Nevada jury convicted Ronald Hulsey of second-degree murder (life with parole eligibility after 10 years) and battery with substantial bodily harm; judgment entered Nov. 17, 2011.
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on Oct. 8, 2012; remittitur issued Nov. 4, 2012; Hulsey did not seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hulsey filed a state postconviction habeas petition on Nov. 15, 2013; Nevada courts dismissed it as untimely under state law.
Hulsey filed a counseled federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Feb. 11, 2016; respondents moved to dismiss as time‑barred and unexhausted.
Hulsey argued (1) the AEDPA limitations period should run from discovery of new evidence (transcript of co-defendant’s postconviction hearing obtained Oct. 18, 2015), and (2) actual innocence overcomes the statute of limitations.
The district court concluded the federal petition was untimely, rejected the newly‑discovered‑evidence theory and found Hulsey failed to meet the Schlup actual‑innocence gateway; COA denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hulsey’s § 2254 petition is timely under AEDPA	Limitations should run from discovery of new evidence (transcript obtained Oct. 18, 2015)	Conviction became final Jan. 7, 2013; untimely state petition is not properly filed so no tolling; federal petition filed Feb. 11, 2016 is time‑barred	Petition is time‑barred; limitations expired Jan. 7, 2014
Whether the state postconviction petition tolled AEDPA	N/A — Hulsey relied on state filing to argue later discovery	State postconviction petition was untimely under NRS and thus not "properly filed" for AEDPA tolling (Pace)	No statutory tolling; untimely state petition does not stop AEDPA clock
Whether new evidence (co‑defendant/wife testimony) triggers § 2244(d)(1)(D)	Transcript contains newly discovered factual predicate that could not have been found earlier	Testimony was not newly discoverable; petitioner had earlier affidavit from wife; arguments contradictory	§ 2244(d)(1)(D) does not apply; evidence was not newly discoverable
Whether alleged actual innocence overcomes AEDPA time bar (Schlup gateway)	Hulsey says he tried to break up the fight and only used force to protect his wife; new testimony undermines verdict	Eyewitness testimony at trial (Clymer) and record do not support a showing that no reasonable juror would convict in light of the new evidence	Failed to meet demanding Schlup standard; actual‑innocence gateway not satisfied

Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (finality for AEDPA measured after certiorari period)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (untimely state petition is not "properly filed" for AEDPA tolling)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual‑innocence gateway standard)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (application of Schlup standard)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual innocence can excuse AEDPA time bar in rare cases)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard for procedural rulings)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (COA context)
Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851 (9th Cir.) (COA review guidance)