Parrish v. Zook
3:16-cv-00817
E.D. Va.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Petitioner Quinten D. Parrish, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging Suffolk circuit-court convictions. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations on May 31, 2017.
- Within 28 days of that dismissal Parrish filed two motions: (1) a June 19, 2017 motion styled as Rule 60(b)(6) relief complaining he was transferred in violation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23; and (2) a June 28, 2017 motion asking the court to add/amend claims and asserting he is not smart and may have brain damage, seeking equitable tolling.
- Because the motions were filed within 28 days of the judgment, the court treated them as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- The court summarized the legal standards for Rule 59(e) relief (intervening law, new evidence, or to correct clear error/prevent manifest injustice) and for equitable tolling (requires proof of profound mental incapacity that affected filing).
- The court rejected the transfer/Rule 23 argument as irrelevant to whether the dismissal was legally erroneous and cited precedent holding respondent violations of Rule 23 do not prevent dismissal of habeas petitions.
- The court found Parrish’s bare assertions of limited intelligence/brain damage insufficient to meet the high threshold for equitable tolling, noting his filings in state and federal court demonstrated an ability to pursue habeas relief timely. The motions were denied and a certificate of appealability was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper treatment of post-judgment motions | Parrish styled relief as Rule 60(b)(6) and sought reconsideration | Motions filed within 28 days of judgment should be treated as Rule 59(e) motions | Court treated motions as Rule 59(e) motions (timeliness rule) |
| Effect of prisoner transfer/FRAP 23 violation on habeas dismissal | Transfer to a different district (alleged FRAP 23 violation) undermines dismissal | Transfer does not affect timeliness analysis or the court’s legal ruling | Transfer/Rule 23 claim is irrelevant; dismissal remains valid |
| Entitlement to equitable tolling based on mental impairment | Parrish alleges low intelligence/possible brain damage prevented timely filing | Respondent argues no proof of profound incapacity or causal effect on filing delay | Bare assertions insufficient; no equitable tolling granted |
| Certificate of appealability | Parrish implicitly seeks to appeal denial of relief | Respondent opposes | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (treating post-judgment filings as Rule 59(e) when made within 28 days)
- Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807 (4th Cir. 1978) (procedural treatment of post-judgment motions)
- Hutchimon v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1993) (enumerating grounds for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Hammer v. Meachum, 691 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1982) (prisoner transfer does not preclude dismissal of habeas petition)
- United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling requires profound mental incapacity)
- Grant v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 163 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing standard for tolling for mental incapacity)
- Robison v. Hinkle, 610 F. Supp. 2d 533 (E.D. Va. 2009) (requiring threshold showing of incompetence and causal nexus for equitable tolling)
- McSwain v. Davis, [citation="287 F. App'x 450"] (6th Cir. 2008) (same; incompetence must affect timely filing)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2005) (a bare assertion of mental impairment is insufficient for tolling)
- Smith v. Saffle, [citation="28 F. App'x 759"] (10th Cir. 2001) (prisoner’s ability to litigate undermines tolling claim)