Jesse Bobadilla v. C. Gipson
679 F. App'x 600
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jesse Bobadilla was convicted and sentenced to 50 years-to-life; California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on November 2, 2011.
- Counsel retained the case file and did not notify Bobadilla of the denial until November 17, 2012, returning his records and advising a federal habeas deadline of January 31, 2013.
- The AEDPA one-year limitations period expired January 31, 2013; Bobadilla filed his federal habeas petition on November 7, 2013.
- Bobadilla sought equitable tolling based on counsel’s delay in notifying him (a 53–54 week delay between denial and notice).
- The district court dismissed the petition as untimely; the Ninth Circuit granted COA limited to timeliness/equitable tolling and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA limitations period is tolled for counsel’s failure to notify of state-court denial | Counsel’s late notice was an extraordinary circumstance entitling Bobadilla to equitable tolling | Delay did not excuse untimely filing because Bobadilla failed to act with required diligence | Court: Extraordinary circumstance existed, but Bobadilla lacked requisite diligence; no tolling granted |
| Standard for diligence after extraordinary circumstance (stop-clock vs. diligence-through-filing) | Apply stop-clock rule; no need to show diligence after impediment ends; petition timely once tolling accounted for | Apply combined approach requiring diligence through filing; petitioner must act promptly after notice | Court applied circuit precedent requiring diligence through filing and declined tolling because of 11-month inaction after notice |
| Whether post-expiration state filings (Feb & Oct 2013) show diligence | Bobadilla: state filings show pursuit of relief | Respondent: state filings after expiration do not demonstrate timely diligence for federal filing | Court: those state filings do not establish the required diligence; they do not save federal petition |
| Whether counsel’s misconduct alone suffices despite petitioner’s delay | Bobadilla: counsel’s abandonment prevented timely filing despite reliance | Respondent: petitioner’s own prolonged inaction breaks causal chain | Held: misconduct was extraordinary but petitioner’s inaction was the proximate cause of delay, so equitable tolling denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (two-part equitable tolling test: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (AEDPA tolling principles tied to state-court proceedings)
- Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999) (certiorari-timing rule for AEDPA limitations start)
- Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015) (discusses tension between stop-clock and diligence-through-filing rules)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (adopted stop-clock approach in habeas context)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses diligence-through-filing requirement; attorney misconduct as extraordinary circumstance)
- Fue v. Biter, 842 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (ordinarily requires diligence both before and after delayed notice)
- Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) (diligence requirement ensures petitioner’s acts did not cause delay)
- Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (classic statement of stop-clock rule)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (access to counsel’s file is critical to preparing habeas petition)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (advises that lengthy waits for court decisions are not unusual)
- Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002) (concurring view that statutory year should be uniform irrespective of impediments)