Johnny Jones, III v. Timothy Filson
705 F. App'x 595
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Johnny Lee Jones III, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under AEDPA.
- Jones argued the AEDPA one-year clock did not begin running because trial counsel failed to pursue a direct appeal; court relied on Randle to reject alternate start-date theories.
- Jones filed a state habeas petition shortly before AEDPA expired and a federal petition about two months after state proceedings concluded; signatures suggest state filing may have been mailed Dec. 8, 2006.
- Jones sought equitable tolling based on (1) alleged destruction of trial transcripts, (2) incapacitating effects of antipsychotic medication (Dec 2005–Jan 2007), and (3) counsel’s failure/abandonment in pursuing a direct appeal.
- The panel affirmed that transcript claims need not be disturbed but remanded for further factual development on the medication and counsel-abandonment equitable-tolling claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA limitations period was deferred by counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal | Rely on counsel’s failure to pursue appeal to delay AEDPA start | AEDPA started despite counsel’s failure; Randle controls | Randle forecloses Jones’s alternate start-date theories; petition not timely on that basis |
| Whether equitable tolling applies for medication-induced incapacity | Medication caused extreme confusion and incapacitation preventing timely filing | State offered no specific controverting evidence in district court | Remanded for factfinding; allegations suffice to warrant development of the record |
| Whether counsel’s conduct (misinformation, nonresponse) warrants equitable tolling as client abandonment | Counsel routinely failed to respond and misled family about filing an appeal | District court treated counsel errors as garden-variety neglect not warranting tolling | Remanded to consider whether facts show client abandonment or extraordinary circumstance and to reassess diligence if so |
| Whether alleged destruction of trial transcripts supports tolling | Transcripts destroyed prevented filing | District court rejected transcript-based tolling | Panel did not disturb district court’s determination regarding transcripts |
Key Cases Cited
- Randle v. Crawford, 604 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (AEDPA commencement and consequences of counsel’s failure to perfect appeal)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (requirements for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (statutory tolling and filing of state habeas)
- Grant v. Swarthout, 862 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying stop-clock rule to tolling and calculation method)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (garden-variety neglect vs. extraordinary circumstances; stop-clock application)
- Orthel v. Yates, 795 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2015) (evidentiary sufficiency to warrant factual development on tolling claim)
- Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (client abandonment can constitute extraordinary circumstance for tolling)