Steven Fue v. Martin Biter
810 F.3d 1114
9th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Steven Pelesa‑sa Fue challenged 2007 armed carjacking convictions and had one year from finality (May 19, 2009) to file a federal habeas petition under AEDPA.
- Fue filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on November 19, 2009, which tolled the AEDPA statute while pending; the California Supreme Court denied the petition on May 20, 2010.
- Fue asserts he never received notice of the denial; he waited 14 months after filing (until January 31, 2011) to write the California Supreme Court inquiring about the status.
- The California Supreme Court Clerk replied February 3, 2011 stating no docket record of a pending petition; Fue then filed his federal habeas petition on March 7, 2011.
- The district court dismissed the federal petition as untimely; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Fue failed to show the required diligence for equitable tolling despite an extraordinary circumstance (lack of notice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fue is entitled to equitable tolling because the state court failed to notify him of denial | Fue: lack of notice is an extraordinary circumstance that excuses late filing; he acted reasonably given court's duty to notify | State: even if notice failure is extraordinary, Fue lacked the requisite diligence (he waited 14 months before inquiring) | Court: Extraordinary‑circumstance prong met (lack of notice) but Fue failed the diligence prong; equitable tolling denied |
| Whether a 14‑month delay in inquiring about a state decision is reasonably diligent for a pro se petitioner | Fue: 14 months is not unreasonably long given California Supreme Court practices and pro se status | State: 14 months is an excessive delay compared to cases finding diligence after ≲10 months | Court: 14 months is closer to cases denying tolling; waiting 14 months was unreasonable |
| Whether prior Ninth Circuit precedent (Huizar) controls | Fue: Huizar shows long waits can be reasonable if petitioner corresponded with court; Fue took some steps after inquiry | State: Huizar distinguished—there the petitioner engaged in a ‘‘steady stream of correspondence’’; Fue did not | Court: Huizar is distinguishable; its diligence rested on repeated inquiries, unlike Fue’s single inquiry after 14 months |
| Proper standard of review for diligence determination | Fue: facts undisputed so de novo review applies; equitable tolling requires flexible, case‑by‑case assessment | State: same standard but argues application favors denial here | Held: Review de novo; applying precedent and comparative cases, court concludes Fue was not reasonably diligent |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and diligence)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (lack of notice by state court can be an extraordinary circumstance if petitioner acted diligently)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (petitioner with a steady stream of correspondence may show reasonable diligence despite long delay)
- Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (AEDPA finality/tolling timing principles)
- Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (nine‑month delay before inquiry found reasonably diligent)
- Drew v. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2002) (sixteen‑month delay found to reflect lack of diligence)
- Hardy v. Quarterman, 577 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2009) (eleven‑month delay held reasonable where court had duty to notify)