Evan Griffith v. Donald Gaetz, No. 09-2518 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 28, 2010.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-2518 E VAN G RIFFITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D AVE R EDNOUR, Warden, Menard Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 06-1306 Michael M. Mihm, Judge. A RGUED A PRIL 5, 2010 D ECIDED JULY 22, 2010 Before E ASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and B AUER and W OOD , Circuit Judges. E ASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. A state prisoner who wants collateral review in federal court must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review . 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A). (The statute restarts the clock under certain circumstances, such as the Supreme Court s recognition of a new constitutional 2 No. 09-2518 right, but none of those possibilities matters here.) For Evan Griffith, who is serving a term of life imprisonment for murder, the end of direct review came in 1994. People v. Griffith, 158 Ill. 2d 476, 634 N.E.2d 1069 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 952 (Oct. 17, 1994). Post-conviction review in state court lasted until 2005. This entitles Griffith to the benefit of §2244(d)(2), which reads: The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. The principal dispute on this appeal concerns the meaning of the word pending . On July 13, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed an order denying Griffith s petition for collateral review. He had 35 days to ask the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(b) (2005). (This rule has been renumbered as 315(b)(1); we refer to the version in force in 2005.) That time expired on August 17. Two weeks later, Griffith filed a petition for leave to appeal, together with a motion asking the court to accept his petition instanter. That motion was granted on September 13. On December 1, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied the petition for leave to appeal. And on November 30, 2006, Griffith filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The federal petition is timely if and only if the state proceeding is treated as pending continuously through December 1, 2005. See Wilson v. Battles, 302 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2002) (review by the No. 09-2518 3 Supreme Court of Illinois ends on its decision date rather than the date of mandate). The district court concluded, however, that the proceeding stopped being pending on August 17, 2005, when Griffith s opportunity to file a (timely) petition for leave to appeal expired. That made the federal petition late, and the district court dismissed it. 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 25794 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2009). The district court relied on Fernandez v. Sternes, 227 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 2000), which concluded that a state proceeding is no longer pending once the state court has made its decision and the time to seek further review has expired. Fernandez had contended that, if another state court accepts an untimely filing, the federal court should treat that decision as retroactively making the proceeding pending during the gap between the end of the authorized filing period and the acceptance of the document. We concluded that a state court s decision to accept an untimely paper makes it properly filed but held that this does not mean that the proceeding was pending during the gap between the end of the authorized filing period and the belated acceptance. We explained: It is sensible to say that a petition continues to be pending during the period between one court s decision and a timely request for further review by a higher court (provided that such a request is filed); it is not sensible to say that the petition continues to be pending after the time for further review has expired without action to 4 No. 09-2518 continue the litigation. That a request may be resuscitated does not mean that it was pending in the interim. [If that were so], if a prisoner let ten years pass before seeking a discretionary writ from the state s highest court, that entire period would be excluded under §2244(d)(2) as long as the state court denied the belated request on the merits. That implausible understanding of §2244(d)(2) would sap the federal statute of limitations of much of its effect. 227 F.3d at 980. Griffith asks us to distinguish the grant of a motion for leave to file a petition instanter (his situation) from the grant of a motion for leave to file an untimely petition. According to Griffith, leave to file instanter means that the petition is timely as a matter of state law. That is not what the state court said, however. A decision to accept a document instanter (law Latin for right now or immediately ) does not make it timely; it just means that the document will be considered on the merits. That s exactly the effect of an order accepting an untimely document. A court that decides to accept an untimely filing could say any of three things: (1) we accept this filing despite its belated submission; (2) we grant a retroactive extension of time; or (3) we accept this filing instanter. As far as we can see, these are identical for the purpose of Illinois law. See, e.g., Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP, 214 Ill. 2d 417, 424 29, 828 N.E.2d 216, 220 23 (2005). More importantly, they are identical for the purpose of federal law. (The meaning of pending, a term No. 09-2518 5 in a federal statute, is a question of federal law.) The point of Fernandez is that state courts decisions do not have retroactive effect. Once a petition has stopped being pending, nothing a state court does will make it pending during the time after the federal clock began to run and before another paper is filed in state court. Fernandez holds that, if a state court accepts an untimely filing, a proceeding is pending from the paper s filing date; thus Griffith had a pending proceeding from September 1, 2005, when he tendered the motion for leave to file instanter, through December 1, 2005, when the state court denied the petition for leave to appeal. But nothing was pending from August 18 through 31. This meant that the year prescribed by §2244(d)(1) expired on November 17, 2006, and Griffith s federal petition was 13 days late. Anticipating that we might agree with the district court on this subject, Griffith contends that Fernandez is inconsistent with post-2000 decisions of the Supreme Court, which say that a document is properly filed for the purpose of §2244(d)(2) if it meets the procedures established by state law, and that if a state court accepts a paper and decides on the merits then it was properly filed. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). See also, e.g., Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 681 (2009) (defining the term final in §2244(d)(1)(A)). In de Jesus v. Acevedo, 567 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2009), we reaffirmed Fernandez, which interprets the word pending rather than any of the other language in §2244(d). We do not doubt that Griffith s petition for leave to appeal was properly filed and that September 1 through December 1, 2005, is ex- 6 No. 09-2518 cluded for federal purposes. This does not imply that anything was pending from August 18 through August 31. Griffith does not make any argument that we overlooked in de Jesus. We shall leave Fernandez undisturbed. Griffith contends that he did not commit the murder of which he stands convicted and maintains that the time limits in §2244(d) do not apply to a person who claims to be actually innocent. We held otherwise in Escamilla v. Jungwirth, 426 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2005), and are no more disposed to overrule that decision than we are to overrule Fernandez. This leaves a request for tolling. Holland v. Florida, No. 09 5327 (U.S. June 14, 2010), holds that the deadline in §2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling, which is appropriate when an extraordinary circumstance stood in [the] way of a timely filing (slip op. 17, quoting from Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). Holland added that a lawyer s egregious behavior (slip op. 18) satisfies that standard, though neither a garden variety claim of excusable neglect nor a miscalculation about the time available for filing is an extraordinary circumstance (slip op. 19). Griffith blames the delay on his lawyer s illness, but the illness in question caused the delay in seeking leave to appeal in state court. This is why the state court accepted the untimely petition for leave to appeal. Griffith does not contend that his lawyer s illness in August 2005 accounts for the decision to file the federal petition after the time to do so (mid-November 2006) had expired. An illness that justifies a belated No. 09-2518 7 state filing does not automatically justify an untimely federal filing more than a year later. The most one could say is that his lawyer misunderstood how to determine when a state petition is pending for the purpose of §2244(d)(2). That sort of error is not extraordinary ; it is all too common. Holland tells us that a simple legal mistake does not excuse an untimely filing. It may be negligent to wait until what is by a lawyer s own calculation the last possible day, because such a calculation could be wrong. But this kind of negligence is not extraordinary by any means. Such a blunder does not extend the time for filing a collateral attack. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336 (2007). A FFIRMED 7-22-10
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
