Steven Forbess v. Steve Franke
749 F.3d 837
9th Cir.2014Background
- Steven Forbess was convicted in Oregon in 1999; the Oregon Court of Appeals issued final judgment on November 28, 2001, triggering AEDPA’s one-year filing clock.
- Forbess did not learn of the final judgment until April 2002 and first learned of the federal one-year limitation only after consulting an inmate legal assistant before July 14, 2003.
- Forbess filed a state post-conviction petition on October 30, 2003, which tolled AEDPA until he filed his federal §2254 petition on October 22, 2008; excluding tolling, his federal filing was about 23 months late.
- Forbess sought equitable tolling for the period Nov. 29, 2001–July 14, 2003, arguing severe delusions caused him to believe he was working with the FBI and therefore had no need to file.
- The district court found Forbess suffered mental illness preventing understanding of the need to file but held he did not prove his illness was the but-for cause of the delay and denied tolling.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding Forbess met both prongs of the mental-impairment equitable tolling test and remanded for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severe mental illness can equitably toll AEDPA | Forbess: his delusions made him unable to understand or to act to timely file | State: delay plausibly explained by lack of notice of appeal termination and counsel not advising him; illness not the but‑for cause | Yes; severe delusions can justify equitable tolling under a totality test |
| Whether Forbess’s mental state satisfied Bills prong 1 (inability to understand need to file) | Forbess: doctors and records show persistent delusions that he was working with FBI and so saw no need to file | State: records show periods of lucidity; argues delusions did not persist throughout relevant period | Held that district court’s factual finding of persistent delusions is supported and satisfies prong 1 |
| Whether illness made timely filing impossible (Bills prong 2) | Forbess: his unique delusions (believing FBI wanted him to stay in prison) meant nothing anyone told him would induce filing—illness was the but‑for cause | State: other non‑medical explanations (no notice, counsel failures, confusion about state relief) could explain delay | Court held district court applied too rigid a but‑for test; under totality, illness did cause the delay and prong 2 is met |
| Remedy for untimely AEDPA petition if tolling granted | Forbess: equitable tolling would render petition timely and require merits review | State: opposes tolling; asks for dismissal as time‑barred | Court reversed district court, granted equitable tolling for relevant period, and remanded for merits proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling available for extraordinary circumstances and diligent pursuit)
- Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (two‑part test for mental‑impairment equitable tolling: inability to understand need to file and impossibility to file despite diligence)
- Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (Bills’ impossibility requirement should not be rigidly imposed for pro se inmates)
- Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2010) (mental incompetence that causes deadline miss constitutes extraordinary circumstance)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review: de novo for time‑bar dismissal and undisputed equitable tolling facts)