Eugene Stroman v. Rick Thaler, Director
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
REVISED April 13, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
N o . 07-20198 April 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk E U G E N E STROMAN P e t i t io n e r - A p p e l la n t v. R I C K THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL J U S T I C E , CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION R e s p o n d e n t-A p p e lle e
A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas
B e fo r e GARWOOD, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM: P e t it io n e r Stroman appeals the district court's dismissal, under 28 U.S.C. 2 2 4 4 (d ), of his section 2254 petition challenging his 2001 Texas conviction and s ix t y year sentence (pursuant to the Texas habitual offender statute) for p o s s e s s io n of cocaine.1
A judge of this court granted Stroman's application for a certificate of appealability as to whether Stroman was entitled to equitable tolling of the § 2244(d) limitations period "due to the delay he experienced in receiving notice of the denial of his state application for habeas relief."
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
No. 07-20198 O n Stroman's direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, the Texas Court o f Appeals affirmed, Stroman v. State, 69 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.Texarkana, 2 0 0 2 ), and thereafter, on May 22, 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals d e n ie d his petition for discretionary review. Stroman never filed a petition for c e r tio r a r i with the United States Supreme Court, and the time for doing so e x p ir e d , and his conviction thus became final on direct review, on August 20, 2 0 0 2 . Accordingly, the one year limitations period for filing a federal habeas c h a lle n g e to his state conviction as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) would e x p ir e on August 20, 2003, subject to exclusion under section 2244(d)(2) of "[t]he t im e during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other c o l la t e r a l review . . . is pending . . . ." On March 24, 2003 Stroman filed his state h a b e a s petition in the state trial court. At that time some 215 days of the 365 d a y limitations period had expired, and some 150 days remained. On October 2 9 , 2004, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Stroman's state habeas p e tit io n . Accordingly, Stroman had until March 28, 2005 to file his federal h a b e a s challenging his referenced state conviction. Stroman filed the instant fe d e r a l habeas on October 20, 2005, nearly seven months late. In his section 2254 petition Stroman alleged, inter alia, that he did not r e c e iv e notice of the denial of his state habeas petition until September 2005. T h e district court ordered him to file a more definite statement regarding his r e c e ip t of notice of denial and, subsequently, to file a further pleading addressing w h e th e r he was entitled to equitable tolling. T h e respondent thereafter moved for summary judgment on the ground, in ter alia, that the petition was barred by the one year statute of limitations and t h a t Stroman was not entitled to equitable tolling. The summary judgment e v id e n c e showed that in January 2004 Stroman had inquired of the Court of C r i m in a l Appeals of the status of his habeas case and had been informed in F e b r u a r y 2004 that it was still pending. He did not inquire again until August 2
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
No. 07-20198 2 0 0 5 , some eighteen months later. He received notice of the denial of his state w r it on September 2, 2005, and filed his federal habeas petition on October 20, 2 0 0 5 , some forty-eight days later. T h e district court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment, h o ld in g that the petition was barred by the one year statute of limitations and t h a t Stroman was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court noted that
S t r o m a n had waited nearly seven months after his state conviction had become fin a l on direct appeal before filing his state habeas, and he knew that he would o n ly have some five months after any denial thereof within which to file for fe d e r a l habeas relief. Yet, after being informed in response to his first inquiry, s o m e ten months after its filing, that the state petition was still pending, he w a it e d an additional eighteen months before making his second inquiry. After h e a r in g that the writ had been denied in October 2004, he waited another seven w e e k s before filing his federal habeas petition. The federal district court
c o n c lu d e d that Stroman had not shown the due diligence required for equitable t o llin g . We affirm. A s we recently said in Hardy v. Quaterman, 577 F.3d 596, 598 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); " A district court's refusal to invoke equitable tolling is reviewed for a b u s e of discretion. [citation] The one-year federal limitations p e r io d is subject to equitable tolling only `in rare and exception c ir c u m s t a n ce s .' [citations] `A petitioner's failure to satisfy the s ta tu te of limitations must result from external factors beyond his c o n t r o l; delays of the petitioner's own making do not qualify.' [citation] "`[E]quity is not intended for those who sleep on their r ig h ts ." ' [citation] The petitioner bears the burden of establishing th a t equitable tolling is warranted. Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 5 0 8 , 511 (5th Cir.), modified on reh'g, 223 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2000). T h e TCCA is (and was at all times material hereto) legally obligated to notify a petitioner once a decision has been rendered on his h a b e a s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 77.4(a). Long delays in
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
No. 07-20198 r e c e iv in g notice of state court action may warrant equitable tolling. T o warrant tolling under such circumstances, a petitioner must s h o w that he `pursued the [habeas corpus relief] process with d ilig e n c e and alacrity' both before and after receiving notification." (cita tio n s omitted). I n Hardy, we recognized our holdings in two similar cases, Lewis v. Cockrell, 275 F .3 d 46, 2001 WL 1267701 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 2001) (unpublished), and Coker v. Q u a r te r m a n , 2008 WL 724042 (5th Cir. March 17, 2008) (unpublished). Both of t h o s e also involved petitioners who had received delayed notice of the denial of t h e ir state habeas petitions after the federal statute of limitations had expired. I n Coker, we held that a one-year delay between the petitioner's first and second in q u i r y with the Court of Criminal Appeals about his state habeas petition was s u ffic ie n tly diligent to allow for equitable tolling of the federal deadline. But in L ew is , we held that a two-and-a-half-year delay before inquiring about a state h a b e a s application constituted a lack of diligence precluding equitable tolling. W h ile in Hardy we held an eleven month delay in inquiry of the Court of C r im in a l Appeals, which had been preceded by a two month earlier unsuccessful in q u ir y of the state convicting court, did not preclude equitable tolling, here the f a c t s are sufficiently more adverse to the petitioner so that Hardy does not ju s tify a holding that the district court in the present case abused its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The delay here between Stroman's first and second in q u ir ie s to the Court of Criminal Appeals was twice as long as that of the o r ig in a l inquiry in Hardy and more than half again as long as the second Hardy in q u ir y . Moreover, in Hardy the state habeas was filed within three months of t h e conviction becoming final and when the state habeas was filed there r e m a in e d some ten months of the one year period of section 2244(d)(1). Here, by c o n tr a s t , the state habeas was not filed until nearly seven months after the c o n v i ct io n became final and at a time when there remained only five months of t h e section 2244(d)(1) one year period. See also Lacava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271, 4
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
No. 07-20198 2 7 7 (3d Cir. 2005) (twenty-one month delay in making inquiry does not co n stitu te requisite due diligence). S t r o m a n also contends, for the first time on this appeal, that the Court of C r im in a l Appeals, in response to his January 2004 inquiry, told him not to make a n y further such inquiries. This allegation was not made in the district court, a n d nothing in the record before the district court supports it. We accordingly d o not consider this contention. See Vernardo v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5 th Cir. 1991). T h e judgment of the district court is A F F IR M E D .
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?