Jerome Davis v. Bob Humphreys
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6089
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Davis seeks federal collateral relief under AEDPA but his filing was untimely under §2244(d).
- He argues his mental incompetence tolls the AEDPA deadline; the district court rejected tolling based on competence.
- The court analyzes whether mental incompetence can justify equitable tolling and what standard applies.
- Circuits have held mental incompetence can toll AEDPA time, but the controlling standard is unresolved in this court.
- The court notes that Davis had counsel appointed later, raising questions about access to legal assistance for mentally limited prisoners.
- The case is remanded for evidence to determine Davis’s abilities and appropriate tolling analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental incompetence can justify tolling under AEDPA | Davis argues any mental shortcoming tolls the deadline | The standard requires a more limited basis than mere impairment | Potential tolling allowed; remand to develop standard |
| What level of incompetence suffices for tolling | Davis seeks broad, any-impairment tolling | Only narrow, well-defined incompetence supports tolling | Not decided; remand for formulation of standard |
| Whether Davis’s mental condition meets the standard for tolling | Davis claims his IQ and limitations qualify | Insufficient evidence to meet the standard yet | Not decided; remand for evidence on abilities |
| Should the case be remanded to develop evidence on Davis’s abilities | Remand unnecessary if clearly untimely | Remand appropriate to resolve factual questions | Remand ordered to determine abilities and proper tolling analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (tolling under AEDPA can be justified by equitable principles)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (untimeliness not excused by plaintiff’s lack of knowledge)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competence to understand charges and assist in defense to be tried)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (limits on execution may relate to understanding proceedings)
- Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2000) (mental incompetence generally does not justify tolling absent other factors)
- Taylor v. Michael, 724 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses inaccess to legal knowledge as tolling factor)
- Miller v. Runyon, 77 F.3d 189 (7th Cir. 1996) (leading tolling decision for mental incompetence)
- Young v. Walls, 311 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2002) (recognizes limits on inferring tolling from disabilities)