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 after a drive-by shooting.
- His direct appeal failed and his convictions became final on October 30, 2002, triggering AEDPA’s one-year limit to file a federal habeas petition.
- Lakey filed multiple state-court petitions, including two rounds of state habeas petitions, with delays between filings.
- His final state petition was denied as untimely by the California Supreme Court; he filed a federal petition on September 15, 2005, well after the state proceedings.
- The district court ruled the petition timely due to statutory tolling for 267 days while the final state petition was pending; the State disputed tolling.
- The Ninth Circuit ultimately vacated and remanded, holding no statutory or equitable tolling applies for the 267 days, so the federal petition is time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lakey is statutorily tolled for 267 days. | Lakey asserts final state petition was 'properly filed' and tolled AEDPA. | State contends untimely state petition cannot toll under 2244(d)(2) because it was improperly filed. | Statutory tolling denied; untimely state petition not properly filed. |
| Whether Lakey is entitled to equitable tolling for the 267 days. | Lakey contends reliance on pre-Pace precedent warrants equitable tolling. | State argues no diligent pursuit and no extraordinary circumstances justify tolling. | Equitable tolling denied. |
| Whether the district court correctly treated the tolling issue de novo on review. | Lakey challenges the court’s tolling analysis. | State defends the district court’s factual/legal tolling determinations. | The court’s tolling determination affirmed in vacatur; petition time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882 (9th Cir.2010) (statutory tolling unavailable for untimely California petitions)
- Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.2005) (untimely state petitions do not toll AEDPA time)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2009) (coram nobis tolling differs from state habeas tolling; diligence matters)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (S. Ct.2005) (untimely state petitions create filing conditions; tolling not available)
- Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.2003) (AEDPA tolling not applied between rounds of state petitions)
- Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.2001) (pre-Pace rule on untimely petitions tolled under older standards)
- Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir.2009) (equitable tolling based on reliance on prior circuit precedent)
- Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2008) (timeliness and reliance on district precedents for tolling)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (S. Ct.2002) (untimely state filings as a filing condition for tolling purposes)