Williams v. Kelley

24 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. Payne

    4:20-CV-1390-JTR (E.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2022)

    “A petitioner acts with diligence when, for example, he writes letters to his attorney asking her to file a habeas petition, contacts the court to learn about the status of his case, seeks to have his attorney removed for failure to pursue his case, and files a pro se petition the very day that he learns it is late.” Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016). Hill, like the petitioner in Williams, “failed to take any action to pursue his federal habeas rights even [when] it became clear that his hired attorney was not effectively pursuing the available remedies.”

  2. Hill v. Payne

    4:20-CV-1390-JTR (E.D. Ark. Mar. 29, 2022)

    "A petitioner acts with diligence when, for example, he writes letters to his attorney asking her to file a habeas petition, contacts the court to learn about the status of his case, seeks to have his attorney removed for failure to pursue his case, and files a pro se petition the very day that he learns it is late." Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016). Hill, like the petitioner in Williams, "failed to take any action to pursue his federal habeas rights even [when] it became clear that his hired attorney was not effectively pursuing the available remedies."

  3. Yates v. Wachtendorf

    418 F. Supp. 3d 376 (N.D. Iowa 2019)   Cited 2 times

    The Eighth Circuit has also found a lack of diligence when a petitioner failed to take any action for several months after it became clear that his hired attorney was not effectively pursuing his available remedies. Williams v. Kelley , 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016). I find that Yates was diligent up until June 2008, when he learned that PCR-1 had been dismissed.

  4. Bissonette v. Dooley

    CIV. 16-5120-JLV (D.S.D. Sep. 11, 2017)

    In contrast, a petitioner does not act diligently when he simply assumes that his attorney is working on his case even though she does not respond to his communication and hangs up on him when he calls." Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). Mr. Bissonette wrote to his attorney requesting she file an appeal. (Docket 1-3).

  5. Chachanko v. United States

    935 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2019)   Cited 19 times
    In Chachanko, a South Dakota prisoner sought review of his criminal case under the Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), which was decided on June 26, 2015.

    Reasonable diligence exists where a petitioner "writes letters to his attorney asking her to file a habeas petition, contacts the court to learn about the status of his case, seeks to have his attorney removed for failure to pursue his case, and files a pro se petition the very day he learns it is late." Williams v. Kelley , 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016), citingHolland v. Florida , 560 U.S. at 653, 130 S.Ct. 2549. "In contrast, a petitioner does not act diligently when," as here, "he simply assumes that his attorney is working on his case."

  6. Coulter v. Kelley

    871 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that the district court did not err in considering timeliness sua sponte when the State "did not knowingly and intelligently waive its statute-of-limitations defense," and was, at most, negligent

    Where a petitioner has not made good use of the time available to him within the limitations period, he has not demonstrated the diligence required to justify equitable tolling. See Williams v. Kelley , 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016) ; Gordon v. Arkansas , 823 F.3d 1188, 1195–96 (8th Cir. 2016) ; Nelson v. Norris , 618 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2010) ; Earl , 556 F.3d at 724–25. Coulter argues that he is not required to show diligence during the eight-month period, and that the district court should have started the one-year limitations period no earlier than January 25, 2000, when he learned of the judgment in his state postconviction proceeding.

  7. Julius v. Reyes

    4:24-CV-04045-CCT (D.S.D. Jul. 31, 2024)

    Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016).

  8. Ladenburger v. South Dakota

    4:24-CV-04059-RAL (D.S.D. May. 7, 2024)

    Holland, 560 U.S. at 653. A petitioner can show diligence by demonstrating that he wrote letters to his attorney asking them to file a habeas petition, that he contacted the court to find out what the status of his case was, and other such actions showing he reasonably sought to pursue his claims. Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016). Here, two and a half years elapsed between the time Mr. Ladenburger's conviction became final and his filing of his federal habeas petition.

  9. Moore v. United States

    4:23-CV-1441 RLW (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2024)

    Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016), citing Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. at 653, 130 S.Ct. 2549. “In contrast, a petitioner does not act diligently when,” as here, “he simply assumes that his attorney is working on his case.

  10. Cullen v. Payne

    4:23-CV-10-JM-JTR (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2023)

    Where a petitioner has not made good use of the time available to him within the limitations period, he has not demonstrated the diligence required to justify equitable tolling. Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2016); Nelson v. Norris, 618 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2010); Earl, 556 F.3d at 724-25.