Opinion
No. 98-CIV-4567 (KMW) (RLE).
September 9, 2004
AMENDED OPINION ORDER
The Opinion and Order filed June 21, 2004, is ordered amended. The Clerk is directed to file this amended opinion.
The Court has amended its earlier Opinion and Order in light of petitioner's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, dated July 12, 2004.
I. Background
This petition for writ of habeas corpus comes to the Court on remand for reconsideration by the Second Circuit. In an order dated May 21, 2002, this Court adopted a Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, and dismissed the petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This decision was based on the Court's conclusion that 643 days of unexcludable time had passed from the date on which petitioner's state court conviction became final until the date on which he filed the present petition. This period of time exceeded the one year statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Following the submission of additional evidence by petitioner, this Court issued a second order, dated May 30, 2002, that assumed arguendo that petitioner was entitled to exclude 260 additional days from the aforementioned period. Because the total number of days still exceeded 365 (643-260 = 383), the Court concluded that petitioner's newly-submitted evidence did not alter the outcome of the May 21 Order.
Petitioner appealed the Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit remanded the matter for reconsideration on December 19, 2002. Specifically, the Second Circuit stated that this Court should reconsider whether the two additional periods of time identified by petitioner are subject to statutory tolling. The Second Circuit also ordered this Court to consider whether some, or all, of the time during which petitioner's first habeas petition was pending before this Court should be equitably tolled. Finally, the Second Circuit ordered this Court to consider whether petitioner's habeas petition should be deemed to have been filed prior to the time this Court previously considered it filed.
The long delay in reconsidering the matter pursuant to the Second Circuit's mandate is due, in part, to the amount of time it took for the files related to the record on appeal to be returned to the Southern District courthouse. The record was returned on July 9, 2003.
II. Discussion
A. Statutory Tolling
Petitioner's state court conviction became final on May 30, 1985. Because this date is prior to April 24, 1996, the enactment date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), petitioner's one-year statutory limitations period would begin to run, at the earliest, on April 25, 1996. See Ross v. Artuz, 150 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir. 1998). However, as of that date, petitioner's first C.P.L. § 440.10 motion was pending in state court. During the time that this first § 440.10 motion was pending, petitioner filed a second § 440.10 motion. On February 22, 1995, the Bronx County Supreme Court denied petitioner's first § 440.10 motion. On May 16, 1995, the Appellate Division, First Department, granted petitioner leave to appeal the Supreme Court's February 22, 1995 decision. On May 1, 1997, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of petitioner's first § 440.10 motion. People v. Felton, 239 A.D.2d 120, 657 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1st Dep't 1997). On December 2, 1997, the New York Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's decision. People v. Felton, 91 N.Y.2d 872, 668 N.Y.S.2d 570 (N.Y. 1997) (Table).
Meanwhile, on July 14, 1997, the Bronx County Supreme Court denied petitioner's second § 440.10 motion. On December 23, 1997, Justice Kupferman of the Appellate Division denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal the Bronx County Supreme Court's order denying petitioner's second § 440.10 motion.
Petitioner's limitations period began to run, therefore, on December 23, 1997, which is the first date following the enactment of AEDPA on which no "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" was "pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
As the Court noted in its May 21 Order, there are two ways to calculate the tolling period. The first counts from the date of a decision on one motion or application to the date on which the next motion or application was filed. The second method counts only the days in between the dates of decision and filing (and, therefore, results in a tolling period one day less than the period that would result from calculation by the first method). The Court does not determine which method is correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2), because the margin of difference between the two methods is immaterial on the facts of this case.
Petitioner argues that the limitations period should have begun to run only on March 4, 1998, which was the date on which the New York Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal the Appellate Division's denial of leave to appeal the Bronx County Supreme Court's denial of his second § 440.10 motion. As noted by the Second Circuit mandate in this case, petitioner's argument appears to be foreclosed by Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F.3d 65, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2001). In Hizbullahankhamon, the Second Circuit held that when the Appellate Division denies a coram nobis application, that application ceases to be pending, notwithstanding the applicant's outstanding request for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. That conclusion was compelled by the Second Circuit's prior ruling in Geraci v. Senkowski, 211 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 2000), which based its decision on the fact that once the Appellate Division denies a coram nobis application, no appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals under New York law. See id. at 9 (citing People v. Adams, 82 N.Y.2d 773, 603 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. 1993). The Second Circuit explained that because the Appellate Division's denial of the coram nobis application meant that the "door of the New York Court of Appeals was closed and further appellate review was unavailable," Geraci's coram nobis application ceased to be pending as of the date of the Appellate Division's order. Geraci, 211 F.3d at 9.
The Hizbullahankhamon Court noted that the Supreme Court's opinion in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 313 (2000), did not address the Second Circuit's interpretation of the "pending" requirement in § 2244(d)(2).Hizbullahankhamon, 255 F.3d at 72, n. 5. Rather, Artuz addressed, and affirmed, only the Second Circuit's interpretation of the "properly filed" requirement. Id.
Similarly, once Justice Kupferman denied petitioner leave to appeal the Bronx County Supreme Court's denial of his second § 440.10 motion, the "door of the New York Court of Appeals was closed and further appellate review was unavailable." Id. The reason for this is that once the Appellate Division denies leave to appeal the denial of a § 440.10 motion, pursuant to C.P.L. § 460.15, New York law does not provide for an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to C.P.L. § 460.20. See Ramos v. Walker, 88 F. Supp. 2d 233, 234-36, n. 3 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing People v. Grossmann, 87 N.Y.2d 1003, 642 N.Y.S.2d 856 (N.Y. 1996), People v. Corso, 85 N.Y.2d 883, 626 N.Y.S.2d 753 (N.Y. 1995). Because no further appellate review was available under New York law, following Justice Kupferman's December 23, 1997 decision, petitioner's second § 440.10 motion ceased to be pending as of that date; the AEDPA limitations period began to run as of December 23, 1997.
Petitioner cites People v. Eastman, 85 N.Y.2d 265, 624 N.Y.S.2d 83 (N.Y. 1995), for the proposition that the Court of Appeals routinely reviews Supreme Court denials of § 440.10 motions, notwithstanding the Appellate Division's denial of leave to appeal. In Eastman, however, the Appellate Division didnot deny leave to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. Rather, the Appellate Division reviewed that decision on the merits and, according to the Court of Appeals, incorrectly affirmed it.
From December 23, 1997, until December 2, 1998, the limitations period was running, because no application for State post-conviction or collateral relief was pending (344 days). The limitations period was then tolled from December 2, 1998, until June 29, 1999 (during the pendency of petitioner's first application for coram nobis). The limitations period then began to run, until July 21, 1999 (22 days). Thereafter, the limitations period was tolled, until March 16, 2000 (during the pendency of petitioner's second application for coram nobis). The limitations period then began to run, until April 2, 2000 (17 days). Thereafter, the limitations period was tolled, until September 21, 2000 (during the pendency of petitioner's third application for coram nobis). The limitations period then began to run, until October 16, 2000 (25 days). Thereafter, the limitations period was tolled, until May 8, 2001 (during the pendency of petitioner's fourth, and final, application for coram nobis). The limitations period then began to run, until petitioner filed this petition.
Petitioner did file his first habeas petition in this Court during that period. That petition was dismissed at petitioner's request, without prejudice, on October 27, 1998, in order for petitioner to exhaust various claims in state court. For purposes of statutory tolling, the period during which that petition was pending in this Court is not tolled. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). The Court will consider below, pursuant to the Second Circuit's mandate, petitioner's eligibility for equitable tolling for some, or all, of that period.
It is this period that the Court did not take into consideration in its May 21, 2002 order (but which the Court assumed, arguendo, was tolled, in its May 30, 2002 order). Upon reviewing the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the limitations period was tolled during the 17-day pendency of this third application for coram nobis.
In this Court's prior orders, the Court considered this habeas petition as having been filed on July 10, 2001, which was the date on which the petition was docketed. Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that this was an error. A pro se prisoner's papers are considered filed as of the date he hands the papers to prison authorities for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). In this case, pro se petitioner signed, and swore to, the petition on May 25, 2001. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Court assumes that petitioner handed his petition to prison authorities for mailing on the date he signed the petition. See, e.g., Rhodes v. Senkowski, 82 F. Supp. 2d 160, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (collecting cases). Cf. Cromwell v. Keane, No. 99-2156, 27 Fed. Appx. 13, 14, 2001 WL 1168546, *1 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) (citingRhodes). The Court thus treats the petition as having been filed on May 25, 2001; thus only 17 days ran between the denial of petitioner's final application for coram nobis and the filing of this petition.
Taking into consideration all of the time subject to statutory tolling, 425 days elapsed by the date when the present petition was filed. (344 + 22 + 17 + 25 + 17 = 425). Because this exceeds the one year limitations period established by § 2244(d)(2), petitioner's petition would be untimely unless some period of the time not statutorily tolled could be equitably tolled.
B. Equitable Tolling
1. Background
The Second Circuit mandate orders this Court to consider whether some, or all, of the time during which petitioner's initial petition was pending in this Court should be equitably tolled. Equitable tolling is appropriate if "extraordinary circumstances prevent a prisoner from filing a timely habeas petition." Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). In order to be eligible for equitable tolling, the petitioner "`must have acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he seeks to toll.'" Id. (quoting Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000).
In the Court's prior orders, the Court treated the original petition as having been filed on June 29, 1998 (i.e., the date on which it was docketed). However, the petition was signed, and sworn to, by petitioner on March 24, 1998; for the reasons discussed above, the Court deems the petition to have been filed on March 24, 1998. From that date until October 27, 1998, the date this Court "so ordered" petitioner's request to dismiss the petition without prejudice, 217 days passed.
At the time that the Court dismissed the original petition without prejudice, it was an open question whether the AEDPA limitations period should be statutorily tolled during the pendency of such a petition. The Court had no reason, at that time, to believe that AEDPA would be interpreted to prohibit statutory tolling during such a period. Indeed, several years after the Court dismissed the petition, the Second Circuit held that the AEDPA limitations period was statutorily tolled throughout the pendency of such petitions. See, e.g., Walker v. Artuz, 208 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2000). That decision was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. at 181-82.
In light of the holding of Duncan, the Second Circuit inRodriguez v. Bennett, 303 F.3d 435, 438-39 (2d Cir. 2002), directed courts to consider whether the limitations period should be equitably tolled during the pendency of a previously filed habeas petition. Numerous courts have held that equitable tolling is warranted in such circumstances. See, e.g., Owens v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. 301CV1480 (SRU), 2003 WL 22208496, *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 4, 2003) (equitable tolling throughout pendency of previously filed habeas petition); De Jesus v. Miller, 215 F. Supp. 2d 410, 412-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (same); Butti v. Giambruno, No. 02 Civ. 3900 (DLC), 2002 WL 31885973, *3 (Dec. 26, 2002) (same); Dewindt v. Artuz, No. 97-CV-2138 (FB), 2002 WL 1034853, *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2002) (same); Jimenez v. Walker, 166 F. Supp. 2d 765, 772 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). Those courts have recognized, as the Second Circuit noted in Rodriguez, that it often takes a great amount of time for a federal court to dismiss on procedural grounds a mixed petition (i.e., a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims). Rodriguez, 303 F.3d at 439, n. 1. As a result, although a court may intend to dismiss a timely filed mixed petition without prejudice, the effect of that dismissal may be to render the dismissal with prejudice, if, as is likely, the petition was pending before the federal court for a substantial amount of time.
In Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 379 (2d Cir. 2001), the Second Circuit proposed an alternative to dismissing petitions without prejudice that would potentially eliminate this problem. The Second Circuit announced that in certain circumstances in which a mixed petition is timely filed, a district court may, in its discretion, stay that petition rather than dismiss it without prejudice. Doing so would demonstrate respect for the importance of permitting state courts to consider all issues in the first instance, while not jeopardizing the timeliness of petitioner's habeas petition by requiring him to file a potentially untimely subsequent petition. Id. at 380-81.
Where the petition is stayed pursuant to Zarvela, there is obviously no need to resort to equitable tolling as suggested byRodriguez. Thus, the issue of equitable tolling is most relevant to cases in which the decision to dismiss the petition without prejudice was made prior to the Second Circuit decision in Zarvela. In petitioner's case, neither Zarvela notDuncan had been decided at the time the Court dismissed the original petition without prejudice. Had those decisions been available at the time, this Court would undoubtedly have stayed petitioner's petition, as is the Court's current practice, rather than order that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Because the Court did not do this, however, the Court must consider petitioner's eligibility for equitable tolling.
2. Extraordinary Circumstances
In this case, the Court finds that equitable tolling is appropriate for the entire period during which the original petition was pending in this Court. When this Court decided to dismiss the petition without prejudice, the Court could not have anticipated the Supreme Court's ruling in Duncan. Even if the Court had anticipated Duncan, the Court could not have anticipated the Second Circuit's decision in Zarvela, which would have provided this Court with authority to stay the petition, rather than dismiss it without prejudice, in order to avoid the risk of rendering any future habeas petition untimely. The Court concludes that extraordinary circumstances therefore exist. See, e.g., Owens, 2003 WL 22208496 at *4 (finding extraordinary circumstances from the fact that "[a]t the time the court dismissed the petitioner's first federal petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust remedies, neither the court nor the petitioner could have foreseen that four years later, the Supreme Court would issue its decision in Duncan . . . rendering the present petition untimely"); Jimenez, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 772 ("the fact that Duncan transformed the dismissal of the [petitioner's first federal petition] without prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice by rendering the [present] petition time-barred presents extraordinary circumstances").
3. Reasonable Diligence
Petitioner has also exercised remarkable diligence in pursuing his claim. Petitioner exercised diligence during the period before he filed his initial habeas petition. He continued to exercise diligence during the pendency of that petition in this Court, and he remained diligent during the period after that petition was dismissed.
a. Prior to the Filing of the Petition
Petitioner filed his original habeas petition in this Court only 20 days after the New York Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal Justice Kupferman's denial of leave to appeal the Bronx County Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's second § 440.10 motion.
Earlier in this Opinion, the Court concludes that petitioner's second § 440.10 application ceased to be pending once Justice Kupferman denied petitioner leave to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. It is nonetheless relevant to the issue of petitioner's diligence that petitioner apparently believed that his § 440.10 motion had not been completely denied until the Court of Appeals order, dated March 4, 1998.
b. During the Pendency of the Petition
Petitioner's diligence continued throughout the pendency of his original habeas petition. Following then-Chief Judge Griesa's order to show cause why the AEDPA statute of limitation did not bar the petition, petitioner quickly responded with the required affirmation. Petitioner also acted proactively in requesting that this Court dismiss his petition without prejudice in order to permit him to exhaust additional state remedies.c. Following the Dismissal of the Petition
Petitioner continued to act in a diligent manner following the dismissal of his original petition. Thirty six (36) days after the Court dismissed the petition, petitioner filed his first application for coram nobis in state court. From that point on, no longer than one month passed between any of his subsequent applications for collateral relief in state court. When the Appellate Division denied petitioner's fourth, and final, application for coram nobis on May 8, 2001, only seventeen (17) days passed until petitioner signed, and swore to, the present habeas petition.4. Conclusion of Equitable Tolling
Two hundred seventeen (217) days passed from the date on which petitioner is deemed to have filed his original habeas petition (March 24, 1998) until the date on which the Court dismissed that petition without prejudice in order to allow the petitioner to fully exhaust his claims in state court (October 27, 1998). Based upon the Court's decision that this period should be equitably tolled, the Court does not count this period in considering the timeliness of the present petition.
C. Conclusion
The Court determined above that (1) 425 days passed before the filing of the present petition, excluding all of the time required by § 2244(d) (2); and (2) 217 of those days should be equitably tolled. 208 days of unexcludable time have passed from the date on which petitioner's state court conviction became final until the date on which he filed the present petition. (425 — 217 = 208). The present petition is therefore timely.
Because the government moved to dismiss the present petition on the grounds that it was untimely, the government has not yet responded to the petition on its merits. In a separate order signed today, this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis. Judge Ellis shall notify the parties of when the government's response papers are due.
SO ORDERED.