James Michael Forney v. Warden
19-10913
| 11th Cir. | Mar 29, 2022Background
- Forney’s conviction became final on October 3, 2011; the one-year AEDPA limitations period ran from that date under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
- Forney filed his federal habeas petition on November 2, 2018; the district court dismissed it as untimely and he appealed.
- Relevant state and federal filings: a hybrid civil-rights/habeas federal suit (filed Feb. 26, 2010; dismissed June 8, 2011), state collateral petitions (filed Mar. 11, 2011; ended Jan. 28, 2014, and another Feb. 10, 2014; ended Apr. 28, 2015), and multiple Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motions (Oct. 9, 2014 denied as untimely; Sept. 6, 2016 dismissed as successive/time-barred; July 28, 2017 denied as successive/not newly discovered).
- Because the first timely state collateral proceedings tolled the limitations only until Apr. 28, 2015, the AEDPA year ran and expired by at latest Apr. 28, 2016; subsequent state filings were filed after expiration and could not revive tolling.
- Claim 1 asserted newly discovered evidence (jury tampering/altered record). Forney contended he learned of it in Sept–Oct 2014 and later sought tolling under §§ 2244(d)(1)(B) and (D); the state courts rejected the evidence as not newly discovered.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: Claims 2–23 were time-barred; Claim 1 was untimely because state-court exhaustion did not preserve a timely federal filing and the state courts found no newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claims 2–23 are timely under § 2244(d)(1)(A) with statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) | Forney argued various state filings tolled the AEDPA year so Claims 2–23 are timely | State argued the AEDPA year expired by April 2016 and later state filings cannot toll an already-expired period | Court held Claims 2–23 untimely: later state filings were filed after the limitations period expired and could not toll it |
| Whether taking judicial notice of state docket entries (Paez v. Secretary v. Bryant standard) was erroneous and prejudicial | Forney disputed the district court’s judicial-notice approach (invoking Paez/Bryant debate) | State argued any error was harmless because the petition is untimely based on Forney’s own dates and appendix | Court did not decide Paez/Bryant issue; held any error harmless and affirmed dismissal as untimely |
| Whether a state-created "impediment" under § 2244(d)(1)(B) tolled all time after finality | Forney claimed state trial/post-conviction court actions prevented him from discovering claims and thus tolled the period | State argued Forney did not show the court prevented him from learning claim bases, so § 2244(d)(1)(B) does not apply | Court held Forney failed to show a state-created impediment that prevented discovery; § 2244(d)(1)(B) did not toll the period |
| Timeliness of Claim 1 (newly discovered evidence/jury tampering) under §§ 2244(d)(1)(B) and (D) | Forney said he learned of the basis in Sept–Oct 2014 and exhaustion in state court tolled under (D); lack of file access in 2018 also tolled under (B) | State relied on state courts’ factual determination that the documents were not newly discovered and that Forney’s own dates show AEDPA lapsed before 2018 file-access issues | Court held Claim 1 untimely: exhaustion tolled only through May 5, 2017 based on Forney’s dates, state courts found evidence not newly discovered, and later lack of file access did not revive the expired AEDPA period |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (federal habeas petitions are not state collateral review for § 2244(d)(2) tolling)
- Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011) (state collateral proceedings toll AEDPA while pending)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (an untimely state postconviction filing does not toll AEDPA)
- Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) (a state petition filed after AEDPA expiration cannot toll)
- Drew v. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2002) (a successive state motion may toll if filed while AEDPA period remains)
- Jones v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 906 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2018) (procedural context recognizing limitations on successive/untimely tolling principles)
- Zack v. Tucker, 704 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (AEDPA statute of limitations is claim-by-claim when different triggers apply)
- Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2012) (exhaustion of newly discovered evidence claims tolls AEDPA while state remedies pending)
- Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (same)
- Sistrunk v. Rozum, 674 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2012) (deference to state court finding that evidence is not newly discovered for § 2244(d)(1)(D) purposes)
- Paez v. Secretary, Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 947 F.3d 649 (11th Cir. 2020) (addressed judicial notice of state-court records; discussed by the parties)
- Bryant v. Ford, 967 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2020) (alternative Eleventh Circuit decision on judicial notice debated by the parties)