Rudin v. Myles
781 F.3d 1043
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- AEDPA provides a 1-year federal habeas filing window and tolling; Pace v. DiGuglielmo governs state-extending tolling considerations.
- Rudin was convicted in 2001 of murder with a deadly weapon and related charge; Nevada direct appeal affirmed in 2004, remittitur issued April 27, 2004, and certiorari deadline was June 30, 2004.
- Nevada state post-conviction relief deadlines and procedures began; Rudin sought post-conviction counsel and later filed multiple papers while Figler was appointed, but no petition was ever filed by him.
- Figler’s abandonment of Rudin delayed state/post-conviction proceedings from 2004 to 2007; Oram eventually took over in 2006 and filed Rudin’s state petition in 2007, which was late.
- Nevada post-conviction court granted relief in 2008 but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed in 2011; Rudin then sought federal habeas relief in 2011.
- The Ninth Circuit ultimately held Rudin entitled to equitable tolling through January 20, 2011, and timely filed her federal petition on April 25, 2011 within the tolled period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rudin is entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). | Rudin argues state-tolling should apply because her state petition was timely/properly filed. | State contends the Nevada Supreme Court’s untimeliness ruling ends § 2244(d)(2) tolling. | No statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). |
| Whether Rudin is entitled to equitable tolling under Holland v. Florida. | Abandonment by counsel constituted extraordinary circumstances; diligence shown in pursuing rights. | State argues no tolling beyond the time Figler failed; later periods not excused. | Equitable tolling applies through Jan. 20, 2011; after that, 1-year AEDPA clock resumes. |
| Whether the August 22, 2007 state status conference created extraordinary circumstances justifying tolling. | Conference created misimpression of tolling; Rudin relied on that and stayed diligent. | Even if extraordinary, Rudin failed to act with reasonable diligence for the tolling period. | Extraordinary circumstances contributed to delay; Rudin acted with reasonable diligence until Jan. 2011. |
| Whether misleading or inaction by the state/post-conviction court qualifies as extraordinary circumstances supporting tolling under Sossa. | State/court misled Rudin into believing tolling applied; Sossa supports tolling when misled. | Sossa concerns are limited to federal proceedings; state-court misstatement should not toll federal clock. | Sossa-based tolling applies; but only to tolling up to Jan. 20, 2011 when tolling ended. |
| Whether Rudin’s federal petition was timely filed within the tolling period. | Filed April 25, 2011 within the tolling period after Jan. 20, 2011. | Date falls outside timely window if tolling ends earlier or if tolling improper. | Yes, timely under equitable tolling; petition timely filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (establishes tolling framework and protective filings when state timing is uncertain)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (abandonment and extraordinary circumstances may warrant equitable tolling)
- Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirmative misdirection can justify tolling when tied to federal proceedings)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S. 2012) (attorney abandonment and its tolling implications)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirmative misdirection and equitable tolling considerations)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2004) (concurring views on misled petitions and timeliness)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (right to counsel in collateral proceedings and related tolling implications)
- Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (timing and tolling discussion in habeas context)