Sigala v. Bravo
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18038
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sigala, a New Mexico state prisoner, was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy, receiving a life sentence plus extra years and parole.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated the armed-robbery conviction but affirmed the remaining convictions; an amended judgment was entered on April 8, 2005.
- The amended judgment became final on May 8, 2005, making the federal habeas deadline May 9, 2006 under § 2244(d)(1)(A).
- Sigala did not file a federal petition until June 2010; state post-conviction petitions were filed in 2008 and 2010 and were denied.
- The district court dismissed Sigala’s federal habeas petition as untimely in January 2011 after adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
- Sigala argued state action impeded his notice of the amended judgment, seeking § 2244(d)(1)(B) tolling and equitable tolling, which the court rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AEDPA one-year clock expired before Sigala filed | Sigala contends the clock tolled by state action. | The clock expired in May 2006; state filings do not toll the period. | Untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(A). |
| Whether a State-created impediment extended the AEDPA period under § 2244(d)(1)(B) | Lack of notice of amended judgment tolled time. | Counsel and state communications negated state action; not a § 2244(d)(1)(B) impediment. | Not applicable to reset the limitation period. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Sigala | Any extraordinary circumstance justifies tolling due to misnotification. | No extraordinary circumstance; petition untimely despite delay. | No equitable tolling; petition remains untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court 2000) (COA requires substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right when petition denied on procedural grounds)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 2005) (two-part test for equitable tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (Supreme Court 2010) (strong basis for equitable tolling due to attorney's conduct and letters))
- San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA clock begins at final Supreme Court denial, not receipt of notice)
- Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2003) (mailbox rule does not extend AEDPA period when final judgment filed)
- Crutcher v. Cockrell, 301 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 2002) (final judgment timing governs AEDPA clock start)
- Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2001) (state post-conviction tolling limitations under § 2244(d)(2))