Rues v. Denney, 643 F.3d 618

Rues was convicted by a jury in Missouri of armed criminal action and first‑degree murder of Michael Wolver and sentenced to life without parole.
Strong evidence linked Rues to the murder, including motive tied to the custody dispute over Wolver’s child.
On the night of the murder, Michael’s roommate observed Rues enter and leave the house, and Rues admitted the killing to two witnesses and in FBI-recorded conversation.
Three shotgun shells at the scene had distinctive bunter marks; Newhouse testified they matched marks on shells from Rues’ home, though no statistical probability was provided.
On direct appeal, Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed; Rues filed a PCR, which the Jackson County circuit court denied and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed; the PCR mandate issued June 26, 2008.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling restores the habeas deadline	Rues argues, via counsel’s miscalculation, extraordinary circumstance supports tolling	Delay was garden‑variety neglect, not extraordinary circumstances	No equitable tolling; miscalculation not extraordinary
Whether the NAS study constitutes newly discovered evidence extending 2244(d)(1)(D)	Study could not have been discovered earlier; it extends start date	Study is not new factual predicate; issues were raised previously	Study not a new fact; does not extend start date

Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2000) (attorney miscalculation not extraordinary tolling)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (attorney miscalculation not sufficient for tolling)
Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (garden variety neglect not tolling absent extraordinary circumstances)
Payne v. Kemna, 441 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2006) (tolling principles during PCR timeframe)
Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008) (finality and tolling principles for Missouri prisoners)