Willie Grant v. Gary Swarthout
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12164
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Grant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to consecutive 25‑to‑life terms; direct review concluded and certiorari denied on October 5, 2009, starting AEDPA’s one‑year clock.
- Grant filed a state habeas petition on September 25, 2010, which tolled AEDPA; the California Supreme Court denied relief on November 16, 2011, and Grant was notified on November 21, 2011, leaving seven days under AEDPA.
- On November 21, 2011, Grant requested a prison‑account certificate (required to file in forma pauperis). The certificate was not delivered to him until December 19, 2011; he constructively filed his federal habeas petition that day.
- The state moved to dismiss as untimely; the district court dismissed, finding Grant had not shown diligence throughout the entire pre‑impediment period and denying equitable tolling.
- The Ninth Circuit held that a petitioner need not have worked throughout the entire statutory year before an extraordinary impediment, found the prison delay was an extraordinary circumstance, granted equitable tolling for Nov. 21–Dec. 19, 2011, and reversed/remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | Swarthout's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner must show diligence during the entire pre‑impediment portion of AEDPA’s year to obtain equitable tolling | Grant: No; petitioner may rely on the full statutory year and need only be diligent when the extraordinary impediment exists | State: Yes; courts may deny tolling if petitioner could have filed earlier by working harder | Court: Rejected the requirement of diligence throughout the pre‑impediment period; petitioner may rely on full 365 days and need not anticipate rare impediments |
| Whether delay by prison officials in producing a prison‑account certificate constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting equitable tolling | Grant: Yes; he was dependent on officials and requested certificate immediately upon notice | State: No; argues certificate delay was not extraordinary and alternative filing options existed | Court: Delay in providing required certificate was an extraordinary circumstance beyond Grant’s control; equitable tolling applies |
| Whether Grant’s petition was timely after tolling Nov. 21–Dec. 19, 2011 | Grant: Tolling that interval makes petition timely | State: Petition remained untimely | Court: With equitable tolling for Nov. 21–Dec. 19, the petition was timely; dismissal reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Holland, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling available under AEDPA)
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (petitioner not barred from tolling for filing late in limitations period)
- SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) (courts may not use equitable doctrines to shorten statutorily prescribed limitations periods)
- Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (prison official delay in handling trust account can be an extraordinary circumstance justifying tolling)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling denied where petitioner unreasonably delayed seeking state collateral relief for years)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling is fact‑dependent; diligence standard explained)
- Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006) (statutory tolling does not cover the gap between direct appeal and the first state collateral filing; diligence during impediment period is focal)