Lakey v. Hickman
633 F.3d 782
9th Cir.2011Background
- Lakey, a California state prisoner, was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder for a drive-by shooting in Stockton.
- Direct review ended with finality on October 30, 2002, triggering AEDPA's one-year limitations for federal habeas review.
- Lakey pursued multiple state petitions for post-conviction relief from 2003 to 2005, including two rounds of state habeas petitions.
- The Supreme Court of California denied Lakey’s final petition for post-conviction relief as untimely on December 15, 2005.
- Lakey filed his federal habeas petition on September 15, 2005, before the California Supreme Court denial was finalized in 2005 but after some state denials, raising tolling questions.
- The district court held Lakey’s petition timely under tolling, while the Ninth Circuit ultimately held AEDPA tolling did not apply for the 267 days pending the untimely state petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 267-day period pending the untimely state petition tolls AEDPA | Lakey argues statutory tolling applies because the petition was properly filed pending state review. | Hickman argues the untimely state petition is not properly filed, so tolling does not apply. | Statutory tolling unavailable for the 267 days. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies for the 267 days | Lakey contends he relied on pre-Pace law allowing tolling during pending state review. | Hickman argues Lakey did not diligently pursue rights and Pace foreclosed tolling. | Equitable tolling not warranted; petition untimely even with some pre-Pace reliance. |
| Whether the AEDPA deadline was ultimately met when considering tolling | Lakey maintains some tolling keeps his petition timely. | State maintains the 267 days render the petition untimely. | Petition remains time-barred; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (untimeliness tolling standards for state petitions; time limits are filing conditions)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (untimely state petitions and filing conditions; tolling not available)
- White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2010) (statutory tolling unavailable when state petition is untimely)
- Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005) (untimely state petitions do not toll AEDPA)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (tolling during certain California coram nobis petitions when due diligence shown)
- Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2001) (pre-Pace tolling rule for untimely state petitions)
- Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2009) (reliance on pre-Pace tolling doctrine; not applicable here)
- Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (reliance on Dictado for tolling analysis; not persuasive post-Pace)
- Pace v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (Pace decision; tolling implications and protective filings guidance)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling high threshold; diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (contextual timing considerations in tolling analysis)
- Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003) (AEDPA limitations not tolled between rounds of state petitions)