935 F.3d 627
8th Cir.2019Background
- In July 2008 Chachanko pled guilty to using/carrying a firearm during a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 300 months; he did not appeal.
- After Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), Chachanko sought § 2255 relief claiming Johnson invalidated his sentence; the one-year statute of limitations ran in June 2016.
- Chachanko was housed in the BOP Special Housing Unit from March 2015 to March 2017 and contacted the Federal Public Defender (FPD) in April 2016 seeking help to file before the deadline.
- The FPD mailed a June 15, 2016 letter declining to file because Eighth Circuit law treated Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence; the letter was returned unopened and Chachanko did not receive it.
- Chachanko learned the FPD had not filed on August 24, 2016, but did not file pro se until April 2017; the district court denied his § 2255 as untimely and found he failed to pursue his rights diligently.
- On appeal, Chachanko conceded untimeliness and argued for equitable tolling; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding no extraordinary circumstance and insufficient diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to excuse untimely § 2255 filing | Chachanko: he never received the FPD’s June 15 letter, reasonably relied on counsel, and extraordinary circumstances (SHU confinement/returned mail) prevented timely filing | Government: no extraordinary circumstance; Chachanko failed to act with reasonable diligence after learning FPD hadn’t filed | Denied equitable tolling; petition untimely and district court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Muhammad v. United States, 735 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2013) (SHU confinement and reliance on counsel did not warrant equitable tolling)
- English v. United States, 840 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for equitable tolling denials)
- Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy)
- Burks v. Kelley, 881 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2018) (two-part equitable tolling test from Holland)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2016) (examples of reasonable diligence in habeas context)
- Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2000) (counsel’s confusion about limitations does not warrant equitable tolling)