Vine v. Janecka, 2:15-cv-00461

Petitioner Elgin Vine was convicted of second-degree murder; amended judgment entered June 11, 2012; direct appeal denied and certiorari denied by N.M. Supreme Court on February 7, 2013; conviction became final May 23, 2013.
Vine filed a federal § 2254 petition in February 2014 which was dismissed without prejudice for unexhausted claims after the court refused to stay the case.
Vine filed a state habeas petition (deemed filed May 19, 2014); the state district court denied relief and the N.M. Supreme Court denied certiorari; the state proceedings became final March 17, 2015.
Vine filed a second federal § 2254 re-petition (deemed filed May 28, 2015), raising the same four claims he raised in state court (self-incrimination, no corpus delicti, insufficient mens rea/evidence, cumulative error).
Respondents moved to dismiss as time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year limit, § 2244(d); the district court calculated tolling for the state habeas petition and concluded Vine filed his federal re-petition 68 days late.
The district court rejected equitable tolling and Vine’s argument that the court’s earlier refusal to stay justifies tolling, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under § 2244(d)(1)(A)	Vine argued his claims are timely because of state habeas tolling and prior proceedings	Respondents argued AEDPA year began after direct-review finality and expired before re-petition	Court held conviction became final May 23, 2013; state habeas tolled May 19, 2014–Mar 17, 2015; re-petition filed May 28, 2015 was 68 days late, so barred
Statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2)	Vine relied on tolling while state habeas was pending	Respondents accepted tolling period but asserted it left only 4 days post-mandate	Court held statutory tolling applied for the state petition period but left 4 days after March 17, 2015, which Vine missed
Equitable tolling	Vine argued the court should equitably toll because the court previously denied a stay of his first federal petition	Respondents argued Vine’s delay was voluntary and not an extraordinary circumstance	Court held equitable tolling not warranted; a 72-day voluntary wait was not extraordinary or beyond Vine’s control
Effect of prior dismissal/stay request (and exhaustion/second-or-successive)	Vine asserted the court’s earlier handling should excuse lateness	Respondents argued claims are not second/successive but time-barred; exhaustion questions unnecessary if time-barred	Court held prior dismissal without prejudice does not excuse the late filing; claims are not successive but are barred by AEDPA time limit

Harris v. Dinwiddie, 642 F.3d 902 (10th Cir.) (calculating direct-review finality and time to seek Supreme Court review)
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (statutory tolling while state collateral review is pending)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling principles and when state proceedings conclude for AEDPA purposes)
Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir.) (standard for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir.) (dismissal of § 2254 as time-barred under Rule 12(b)(6))
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for determining successive petitions and COA considerations)