Kunta Gray v. Dushan Zatecky
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14154
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2000 Gregory Jones was shot during a drug transaction; Kunta Gray was arrested and ultimately convicted at retrial in 2007 of felony murder, murder, robbery, attempted murder, and related offenses and sentenced to 85 years.
- Gray’s conviction became final on January 2, 2008. He filed state postconviction relief on July 29, 2008, which tolled the AEDPA one-year limitation period.
- Indiana denied postconviction relief and that denial became final on August 8, 2012, leaving Gray 156 days (until January 11, 2013) to file a federal habeas petition.
- Gray did not file in federal court until April 29, 2013—108 days after the AEDPA deadline had run—so he sought equitable tolling to excuse the untimeliness.
- Gray argued equitable tolling was warranted due to limited legal resources, institutional lockdowns, and a 113-day delay in receiving his trial record from the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The district court denied equitable tolling; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding Gray did not show the requisite diligence and extraordinary circumstances comparable to the limited precedent that granted tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gray qualifies for equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year limit | Gray sought tolling because he was indigent, pro se for long periods, experienced institutional lockdowns limiting library access, and waited 113 days for the state appellate record | State argued Gray had sufficient time after receiving records and that routine delays do not justify tolling; he failed to show extraordinary circumstances or diligence | Court held Gray did not meet Holland’s two-part test (diligence + extraordinary circumstance); equitable tolling denied |
| Whether Socha v. Boughton compels tolling here | Gray relied on Socha as a closely analogous precedent for tolling where prisoner lacked access and faced long delays getting counsel’s files | State distinguished Socha as involving far more severe deprivation (administrative segregation, near-total denial of library access, counsel’s prolonged refusal to produce files) | Court found similarities but significant differences; Socha does not compel tolling and does not set a floor—case is fact-dependent |
| Whether district court abused discretion in evaluating the holistic circumstances for tolling | Gray argued district court failed to account properly for state delay and access limitations in a holistic assessment | State argued district court reasonably applied Holland and Socha and exercised proper deference | Court concluded district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed dismissal |
| (Auxiliary) Whether other procedural claims should be reached | Gray raised other habeas claims (ineffective assistance, Batson, inaccurate juror questionnaire) | State did not oppose staying consideration unless tolling allowed | Court declined to reach the merits because petition was untimely and not equitably tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling granted where prisoner faced extreme deprivation of legal resources and counsel withheld files)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits racially motivated peremptory strikes)