Limited English Proficiency Doesn't Justify Tolling AEDPA Deadline
Yang v. Warden, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 1795049 (10th Cir. April 22, 2008)
Sec. 2254 petition filed over one year after pro se petitioner’s state court conviction became final is untimely, and there is no equitable tolling of the time due to fact that petitioner speaks Hmong as his first language. Limited proficiency in English (he did not say that he did not understand English at all) does not constitute the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to call equitable tolling into play (court compares this favorably to a 2007 decision that dyslexia does not state an extraordinary circumstance). Petitioner also failed to show he diligently pursued his claim.
Sec. 2254 petition filed over one year after pro se petitioner’s state court conviction became final is untimely, and there is no equitable tolling of the time due to fact that petitioner speaks Hmong as his first language. Limited proficiency in English (he did not say that he did not understand English at all) does not constitute the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to call equitable tolling into play (court compares this favorably to a 2007 decision that dyslexia does not state an extraordinary circumstance). Petitioner also failed to show he diligently pursued his claim.
posted by Anonymous at 10:21 AM
<< Home