486 F. App'x 208
2d Cir.2012Background
- Petitioner Williams challenges a district court’s habeas dismissal as time-barred under AEDPA § 2244(d).
- District court dismissed Williams’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely under AEDPA.
- This Court reviews tolling and discovery arguments de novo or for abuse of discretion as appropriate.
- Williams argues equitable tolling due to prison law-library access, and statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(1)(B) and (D); he also raises a Suspension Clause claim.
- Court assumes familiarity with facts but concludes Williams failed to show reasonable diligence or credible new factual predicates for tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable tolling due to library access | Williams asks for tolling during library-access denial | Ercole contends no reasonable diligence shown | Denied; no diligence shown to warrant tolling |
| Impediment under Bounds (§ 2244(d)(1)(B)) | Lack of library access violated right of access to courts | Record insufficient to prove a constitutional violation | Denied; no substantiated impediment shown |
| New factual predicates under § 2244(d)(1)(D) | Letters/affidavits reveal new predicate discoverable with due diligence | State court found the evidence incredible; not a new predicate | Granted to extent that district court erred on discovery timing, but rejected due to credibility, affirming dismissal on alternative basis |
| Suspension Clause | Untimely filing would violate Suspension Clause | No basis shown to require untimely filing | Rejected; dismissal affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourdon v. Loughren, 386 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2004) (constitutional violation burden on inmate demonstrated by evidence in record)
- Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) (due diligence required for tolling issues)
- Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 1996) (record sufficiency governs tolling conclusions)
- Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (Suspension Clause implications discussed)
- Wims v. United States, 225 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (discovery of factual predicates governed by due diligence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (due diligence and discovery of new predicates concept cited)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling framework and extraordinary circumstances)
- Saunders v. Senkowski, 587 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing tolling decisions)