Robert Jenkins v. Superintendent Laurel Highland
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1004
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Jenkins, a Pennsylvania prisoner, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254, with the District Court dismissing as untimely under §2244(d).
- Direct review concluded with Pennsylvania Supreme Court denial on September 28, 2007, making finality date December 27, 2007.
- PCRA petition filed October 1, 2008; Superior Court affirmed denial November 10, 2009; motion to extend filed December 2, 2009.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the nunc pro tunc filing on April 27, 2010; Jenkins filed federal habeas on May 7, 2010.
- The issue is whether AEDPA’s one-year clock was statutorily tolled by Jenkins’s state collateral review filing.
- The court held Jenkins is entitled to statutory tolling, and equitable tolling was discussed as potentially applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properly filed petition tolling | Jenkins contends the December 2, 2009 filing was properly filed under state rules. | Commonwealth argues the filing was merely a motion to extend time and not properly filed. | The pleading was properly filed; it tolled AEDPA’s clock. |
| AEDPA tolling during PCRA/petition for allowance process | Tolling applies for properly filed state collateral review pending review. | No tolling unless properly filed under state rules. | Statutory tolling applied during the PCRA and related proceedings, delaying the AEDPA clock. |
| Equitable tolling applicability | Jenkins demonstrated diligence and extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling. | Equitable tolling should be considered only if statutory tolling does not resolve timeliness. | Equitable tolling was discussed as possible but unnecessary to reach the statutory tolling result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (limits of tolling; AEDPA not jurisdictional, subject to equitable tolling)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (filings governed by time limits; conditions to filing)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) (definition of properly filed applications)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (state court timeliness and tolling framework)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (timeliness rulings on state petitions affect tolling)
- Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2000) (timeliness during state review period)
- Douglas v. Horn, 359 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2004) (distinguishing petition for extension nunc pro tunc)
- Nara v. Frank, 264 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2001) (defects in filing and tolling implications)
- LaCava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005) (diligence and extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling)
- Munchinski v. Wilson, 694 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2012) (equitable tolling analysis and diligence standard)
- Merritt v. Blaine, 326 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) (precedent on tolling and state filings)
- Urcinoli v. Cathel, 546 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 2008) (extraordinary circumstances in tolling)
- Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999) (timeliness and diligence considerations)