Willie Manning v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14641
5th Cir.2012Background
- Manning was convicted of two counts of capital murder for 1992 killings; direct appeal denied in 1999 and certiorari denied in 1999.
- Manning filed state postconviction relief in 2001; it was denied in 2006.
- Manning filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 on October 12, 2005.
- The district court held equitable tolling applied but AEDPA’s one-year limit did not toll; it granted a COA on Batson and penalty-phase IAC issues.
- The State appeals, arguing no procedural bar on Batson and no equitable tolling under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Manning’s AEDPA deadline. | Manning relies on Mississippi’s appointment of counsel and delays to toll. | State argues no due diligence rending tolling warranted. | Equitable tolling not appropriate; Manning failed due diligence. |
| Whether AEDPA statutory tolling applies due to state appointment delays. | Manning argues delays due to incompetent state counsel extended time. | Mississippi’s delays do not excuse diligence failure; Lawrence controls. | Statutory tolling not available; delays do not excuse failure to file timely. |
| Whether nunc pro tunc filing by Mississippi tolls AEDPA deadline. | Mississippi’s nunc pro tunc filing should render petition timely. | Nunc pro tunc order vacated; cannot toll. | Nunc pro tunc order did not establish entitlement to tolling. |
| Whether 2244(d)(1)(B) impediment and 2244(d)(1)(D) discovery rules extend the deadline. | Mississippi counsel issues prevented timely filing; discovery of facts extended time. | State action not sufficient; no right to postconviction counsel; no extension. | No extension under (B) or (D); limits remain April 5, 2000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (state error in providing counsel does not toll AEDPA deadline)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment may be extraordinary but does not relieve diligence requirements)
- Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2001) (misrepresentation about filing date does not entitle petitioner to tolling)
- United States v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2008) (ineffective assistance of counsel not grounds for tolling; duty to act remains)
- Prieto v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2006) (district court toll extensions can constitute tolling under AEDPA)
- Hardy v. Quarterman, 577 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2009) (inquiries into status can show diligence for tolling)