Zguro v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1:20-cv-01300
| M.D. Penn. | Apr 27, 2021Background
- Petitioner Larry T. Zguro was convicted of theft by unlawful taking on May 23, 2014, and sentenced to 18–36 months in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.
- He alleges he was held 5 months and 8 days beyond his maximum release date of February 28, 2017.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole issued a notification dated August 3, 2017, identifying the February 28, 2017 max date (the Board notice is treated as the claim's factual predicate).
- Zguro filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 30, 2020, challenging the overdetention.
- Respondents asserted the petition was time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year limitations period (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)); Zguro did not file a reply or present reasons for delay.
- The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, found equitable tolling inapplicable, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA (start date) | The Board’s Aug 3, 2017 notice is the factual predicate for the claim | The one-year AEDPA period ran from Aug 3, 2017 and expired ~Aug 3, 2018; petition filed July 30, 2020 is untimely | Petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) |
| Equitable tolling | No substantive explanation or evidence supplied by Zguro to justify tolling | Respondents: no extraordinary circumstances or diligence shown to warrant tolling | Equitable tolling denied; petitioner failed to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Petitioner did not show a substantial showing of constitutional denial | Respondents: procedural dismissal; no debatable procedural or substantive ruling | COA denied; jurists of reason would not find procedural ruling debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- McAleese v. Brennan, 483 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2007) (AEDPA limitations period applies to challenges to parole/administrative decisions)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (AEDPA’s one-year limitation is subject to equitable tolling when diligence and extraordinary circumstances are shown)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (statute of limitations tolling principles for habeas petitions)
- LaCava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005) (diligence requirement extends through exhaustion of state remedies)
- Ross v. Varano, 712 F.3d 784 (3d Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling standards reaffirmed and applied)
- Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80 (3d Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling should be applied sparingly)
- Brinson v. Vaughn, 398 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2005) (examples of extraordinary circumstances that may justify tolling)
- Brown v. Shannon, 322 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 2003) (causation requirement between extraordinary circumstance and untimely filing)
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a COA)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (when COA should issue after procedural dismissal)