Prison's Confiscation of Legal Materials Shortly Before AEDPA Deadline Could Support Equitable Tolling
US v. Gabaldon, 06-2348 (10th Cir. 4/17/08) (published): The district court should not have dismissed the pro se petitioner's petition that was filed 36 days after expiration of the one-year AEDPA period, which expired on March 21, 2006.
Mr. Gabaldon contended that he should receive equitable tolling because, on Feb. 2, 2006, prison officials put him in segregation and confiscated all his legal materials. Despite his requests, they did not give the materials back until April 4, 2006, and he filed his 2255 motion on April 26, 2006, which was 36 days late. The district court thought that Mr. Gabaldon hadn't been diligent before being placed in segregation and the prison's confiscation of his materials was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying his failure to timely file.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that complete confiscation of the petitioner's materials just weeks before the filing deadline would constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The Tenth also found that Mr. Gabaldon had proven due diligence in attempting to prepare his documents and criticized the district court for apparently believing that he should have filed before being put in segregation. The Tenth pointed out that Mr. Gabaldon was given one year to file, and apparently would have met that deadline. To conclude that he should have filed earlier in the limitations period would artificially shorten the time period and penalize him for attempting to thoroughly research his issues. However, the Tenth stopped short of finding that equitable tolling was proper, and remanded so that the government could contest Mr. Gabaldon's claims.
Mr. Gabaldon contended that he should receive equitable tolling because, on Feb. 2, 2006, prison officials put him in segregation and confiscated all his legal materials. Despite his requests, they did not give the materials back until April 4, 2006, and he filed his 2255 motion on April 26, 2006, which was 36 days late. The district court thought that Mr. Gabaldon hadn't been diligent before being placed in segregation and the prison's confiscation of his materials was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying his failure to timely file.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that complete confiscation of the petitioner's materials just weeks before the filing deadline would constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The Tenth also found that Mr. Gabaldon had proven due diligence in attempting to prepare his documents and criticized the district court for apparently believing that he should have filed before being put in segregation. The Tenth pointed out that Mr. Gabaldon was given one year to file, and apparently would have met that deadline. To conclude that he should have filed earlier in the limitations period would artificially shorten the time period and penalize him for attempting to thoroughly research his issues. However, the Tenth stopped short of finding that equitable tolling was proper, and remanded so that the government could contest Mr. Gabaldon's claims.
posted by Anonymous at 4:19 PM
<< Home