Jenkins v. Greene
630 F.3d 298
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Jenkins was sentenced in 2000 to two consecutive 25-year terms for two counts of first-degree assault.
- In 2005 Jenkins filed a pro se CPL 440.10 motion in New York state court claiming ineffective assistance from trial counsel for not informing him of sentencing exposure.
- The state courts denied the 440.10 motion and an appeal followed; Jenkins then pursued federal habeas corpus in SDNY.
- Jenkins argued he was entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s 1-year deadline because NY law required an attorney affidavit and he faced difficulty obtaining one from his former attorney.
- The district court denied relief as untimely; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding no equitable tolling because NY law allowed an affidavit or an explanation for its absence and Jenkins failed to show an extraordinary circumstance.
- A circuit dissent urged equitable tolling overall on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkins is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s deadline. | Jenkins argues extraordinary circumstances and diligence warrant tolling. | The district court held no extraordinary circumstance and no tolling. | No equitable tolling; petition untimely. |
| Whether NY law requiring an attorney affidavit constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. | NY law invariably requires an affidavit from counsel or an explanation for absence. | NY courts permit either an affidavit or an explanation; not an extraordinary impediment. | Not an extraordinary circumstance; affidavit not strictly required. |
| Does Holland v. Florida control the standard for equitable tolling in this context? | Holland supports flexible, equitable treatment recognizing extraordinary circumstances. | District court properly applied a legal rule that precludes tolling here. | Holland applied; tolling not warranted given the facts. |
| Did Jenkins' alleged delay relate causally to the extraordinary circumstance? | Diligent attempts to obtain an affidavit show causation for delay. | Delay was due to mistaken reading of NY law; not a cognizable extraordinary circumstance. | No causal link sufficient for tolling. |
| Was the district court’s tolling decision reviewable under proper standard? | Equitable review should be de novo given legal misinterpretation. | Review standard aligns with circuit precedent. | Court affirmed district court’s denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (Supreme Court 2010) (AEDPA tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Belot v. Burge, 490 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2007) (three-part standard for reviewing tolling decisions)
- Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003) (attorney conduct may constitute extraordinary tolling circumstances)
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (causal relationship required between extraordinary circumstances and lateness)
- Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2000) (forms of tolling and diligence considerations in AEDPA context)