Trainor v. Uttecht
4:15-cv-05085
E.D. Wash.Feb 18, 2016Background
- Petitioner Robert Russel Trainor filed a federal habeas petition on Sept. 2, 2015, eight months after the AEDPA deadline, and moved for equitable tolling.
- Initial equitable-tolling support consisted primarily of a declaration from his attorney, Lockwood; the Court held a hearing Nov. 30, 2015.
- The Court identified two deficiencies: (1) attorney conduct appeared to be negligence, not an extraordinary circumstance; and (2) Trainor had not submitted his own affidavit demonstrating his diligence.
- The Court allowed limited supplemental filings; Trainor submitted a declaration from Gina Tennen and a call log but no personal affidavit of diligence. The Court denied equitable tolling on Dec. 18, 2015.
- Trainor then filed a motion for reconsideration with a newly submitted affidavit from himself; the respondent opposed. The Court considered whether the affidavit was newly discovered and whether reconsideration was warranted.
- The Court denied reconsideration, finding (a) Trainor failed to justify late submission of his affidavit and (b) the attorney conduct did not rise to egregious professional misconduct constituting an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reconsider its denial of equitable tolling based on Trainor’s newly submitted affidavit | Trainor argues the new affidavit shows he exercised diligence and that counsel’s failures justify equitable tolling | Respondent contends the affidavit is untimely and even considered, does not show an extraordinary circumstance | Denied — affidavit not shown to be newly discoverable within Rule 60(b); reconsideration not warranted |
| Whether attorney negligence constituted an "extraordinary circumstance" entitling Trainor to equitable tolling | Trainor contends counsel’s failure to file and monitor the case was sufficiently egregious to excuse the delay | Respondent argues counsel’s conduct was ordinary negligence and insufficient for equitable tolling | Denied — Court finds conduct amounts to ordinary negligence, not egregious professional misconduct |
| Whether Trainor demonstrated reasonable diligence in pursuing his habeas claims | Trainor claims communications with LibertyBell and belief the case was proceeding show diligence | Respondent argues Trainor failed to submit his own timely affidavit or other proof of diligence | Denied — Court finds insufficient proof of reasonable diligence |
| Whether newly submitted evidence met standards for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) / reconsideration standards | Trainor implies new evidence justifies relief/reconsideration | Respondent argues the evidence could have been submitted earlier and does not change outcome | Denied — Court applies standards from precedent and finds no basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for reconsideration including newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening law)
- Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (reiteration of reconsideration standards in the Ninth Circuit)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (application of civil procedure standards to habeas proceedings where consistent with habeas statutes)
- Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015) (example where attorney conduct constituted egregious professional misconduct justifying equitable tolling)