Stackhouse v. Patton
5:14-cv-00981
W.D. Okla.Nov 7, 2014Background
- Petitioner Patrick Stackhouse pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, and was sentenced to 45 years (5 years suspended) in March 2012.
- Stackhouse filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 5, 2014, claiming his sentence was excessive.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal as time-barred under AEDPA; Stackhouse objected, asserting entitlement to equitable tolling due to illiteracy and denial of prison law-clerk assistance.
- The district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and agreed the petition was untimely after accounting for statutory tolling; the last filing day was August 15, 2013.
- Stackhouse did not file until over a year later; the court found he failed to meet both elements required for equitable tolling (diligence and extraordinary circumstance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2254 petition | Stackhouse: Petition timely because equitable tolling applies due to illiteracy and denial of law-clerk help | Respondent: Petition untimely; statutory tolling already applied and no equitable tolling warranted | Dismissed as untimely — last filing date Aug 15, 2013; petition filed Sept 5, 2014 |
| Equitable tolling — diligence requirement | Stackhouse: Denied legal assistance hindered timely filing | Respondent: No showing of efforts to timely file or request extensions | Not met — petitioner did not show he diligently pursued rights |
| Equitable tolling — extraordinary circumstances | Stackhouse: Illiteracy and lack of law-clerk assistance are extraordinary | Respondent: Such conditions are insufficient absent specifics showing they prevented filing | Not met — illiteracy and lack of assistance alone are not extraordinary without detailed showing |
| Requirement to explain how deprivation hindered filing | Stackhouse: Did not specify what assistance was sought or how it blocked filing | Respondent: Petitioner must show how absence of specific help prevented pursuit of claim | Not met — petitioner failed to explain the concrete impact of denied assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (two-part equitable tolling test: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (equitable tolling principles applied to AEDPA limitations)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000) (insufficient access to law does not automatically justify tolling)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (petitioner must explain exactly what legal materials or assistance were sought)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (no abstract right to law library or legal assistance; must show actual injury)
- United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2003) (calculation rule for year-based statutes of limitations)