Opinion
24-KH-511
11-19-2024
QUVADIAS RUFFIN v. STATE OF LOUISIANA IN RE QUVADIAS RUFFIN
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., DIVISION "P", NUMBER 11-3134
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel
WRIT GRANTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE; MATTER REMANDED
Relator, Quvadias Ruffin, filed a pro se writ application, seeking review of the district court's September 7, 2023 judgment denying his application for postconviction relief ("APCR"). For the following reasons, we grant the writ application and remand the matter to the district court.
On July 26, 2012, a unanimous jury convicted relator of one count of convicted felon with a firearm and one count of armed robbery. This Court affirmed relator's convictions and sentences in 2013, and the Louisiana Supreme denied relator's writ application in 2014. State v. Ruffin, 13-393 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/12/13), 131 So.3d 330, writ denied, 14-0066 (La. 6/13/14), 140 So.3d 1194.
Relator's APCR is based on an assertion of factual innocence. The instant APCR was filed in the district court on September 1, 2023. Relator's APCR filed on that date contains an affidavit and a certificate of service dated December 16, 2022. On September 7, 2023, the district court denied relator's APCR as untimely and thus, procedurally barred. Relator contends his APCR was filed on December 16, 2022, when he placed it with prison officials for transmittal to the district court for filing.
The Louisiana legislature established a filing deadline of December 31, 2022 for post-conviction relief applications which assert first claims of factual innocence. La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2. In this writ application, relator asserts his APCR was filed before the deadline set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2, and contends the district court erred in denying a merits review of his APCR on the grounds that it was filed untimely.
Submitted in support of relator's contention is a copy of his Offender's Request for Legal/Indigent Mail addressed to the 24th Judicial District Court which is dated December 16, 2022. Also submitted is his Offender Funds Withdrawal Request, which bears a handwritten notation stating, "Legal Mail." Further, relator attaches a copy of his original, unstamped APCR, which includes relator's affidavit dated December 16, 2022, bearing his signature and the notary's signature. It also contains a certificate of service signed and dated by relator on December 16, 2022.
Relator's writ application states he re-filed his APCR, dated December 16, 2022, on September 1, 2023 after receiving notice that the trial court denied his request to supplement the original APCR filing. Specifically, relator explains the district court ruled on July 19, 2023 to deny his supplemental pleadings because the relator's APCR was never filed in the district court.
Pro se filings are subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings filed by lawyers. State ex rel. Egana v. State, 00-2351 (La. 9/22/00), 771 So.2d 638. In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the Supreme Court noted the "unique circumstances" of the pro se inmate, finding that unlike other litigants, "the pro se prisoner has no choice but to entrust the forwarding of his notice of appeal to prison authorities whom he cannot control or supervise." As such, for the purpose of determining timeliness, the actual date of filing for pleadings filed by inmates is the date the pleading is delivered to the prison authorities. Id.; See also: State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley, 92-2689 (La. 1/6/95), 648 So.2d 909; Shelton v. Louisiana Dep't of Corr., 96-0348 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/97), 691 So.2d 159.
In Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2009), the United States Fifth Circuit applied the principle of Houston to a pro se inmate's writ application that purportedly never reached the intended recipient. Stoot, a Louisiana inmate, claimed to have filed a pro se writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court after the appellate court denied his writ application from the district court's ruling denying his APCR. Stoot, 570 F.3d at 670-71. A relative acting on Stoot's behalf discovered his writ application was never received by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Id. Stoot then filed a second writ application, which the Supreme Court "denied" as untimely. Id. Thereafter, Stoot filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely. Id.
On appeal from the dismissal of Stoot's petition for habeas corpus, the United States Fifth Circuit considered whether his writ application was timely filed in state court, thereby tolling the period of limitation on his federal habeas petition. Id. In support of his claim, Stoot presented an Inmate's Request for Legal/Indigent Mail as evidence that he had mailed an earlier writ application that the Supreme Court had not received. Id. at 671. The Fifth Circuit applied the prison mailbox rule to Stoot's state court filing, finding:
[A] pro se prisoner's pleading is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner submits the pleading to prison authorities to be mailed, regardless of whether the pleading actually reaches the court. Under such a rule, it is of course incumbent upon the petitioner to diligently
pursue his petition. A failure to inquire about a lost petition is strong evidence that the petition was, in fact, never sent.Id. at 672. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that "reference to prison mail logs usually answers the question of when the petition was actually mailed" but concluded in Stoot's case that "we are ill-equipped to determine whether Stoot's allegations are true." Id. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded Stoot's case to the district court for a factual inquiry into whether Stoot submitted a timely petition.
In the present case, relator's APCR filed with the district court on September 1, 2023 appears untimely. However, like the scenario presented in Stoot, relator has submitted an Offender's Request for Legal/Indigent Mail, dated December 16, 2022, as evidence of his earlier filing. On the showing made, we find relator's case warrants a determination by the district court as to whether relator's original APCR was timely filed in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2's December 31, 2022 deadline under the mailbox rule. See Houston, 487 U.S. 266.
Accordingly, we grant relator's writ application, reverse the district court's judgment that denied relator's APCR, and remand this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether relator's APCR was in fact timely and, if so, we direct the district court to rule on the merits of relator's APCR.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 19th day of November, 2024.
TSM
FHW
JJM