Roland Palacios v. William Stephens, Director
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14610
5th Cir.2013Background
- Palacios was convicted in Texas state court in 2007 and sentenced to 60 years.
- His direct appeal was affirmed and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied discretionary review; no certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed.
- He filed a state habeas petition on April 6, 2010; the state court denied and the TCCA denied without written order on January 26, 2011.
- Palacios filed a federal habeas petition on February 25, 2011, after AEDPA’s one-year deadline expired on February 24, 2010.
- The district court dismissed the federal petition as time-barred, denying equitable tolling, and Palacios appealed with a COA on tolling.
- Key issue is whether Palacios’ alleged attorney misrepresentation/abandonment and delays amount to an extraordinary circumstance and reasonable diligence to toll the AEDPA clock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palacios exercised reasonable diligence | Palacios hired counsel and repeatedly pressed for filing; he discharged nonresponsive counsel before deadline. | Palacios delayed unreasonably in hiring counsel and did not pursue timely federal relief. | No reasonable diligence sufficient for equitable tolling |
| Whether attorney misrepresentation/abandonment constitutes extraordinary circumstance | Attorney misrepresented filing and abandoned case, potentially warranting tolling under Maples. | No clear, affirmative misrepresentation proven; abandonment not established as extraordinary circumstance. | Court leaves unresolved on this prong; affirming on other grounds |
| Impact of failure to file a protective federal habeas petition | A protective petition could have preserved federal rights during state proceedings. | Protective petition is not mandatory; not filing weighs against diligence but is not dispositive. | Failure weighs against diligence but is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (diligence and extraordinary circumstances in tolling; case-by-case evaluation)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (protective petitions referenced for staying relief during state exhaustion)
- Manning v. Epps, 688 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (abandonment and diligence guideposts for tolling)
- Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2001) (delay after awareness of finality affects reasonable diligence)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (periods of delay and lack of explanation impact diligence)
- Howland v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2007) (protective petition and diligence considerations in tolling analysis)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment as potential extraordinary circumstance)
- Riggs v. United States, 314 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2003) (attorney misrepresentation and tolling standards caution)