Rues v. Denney, No. 10-2234 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief where he was convicted of armed criminal action and first degree murder of the estranged husband of his romantic interest. At issue was whether the district court should have equitably tolled appellant's statue of limitations period, as his counsel's negligence in failing to file a timely petition constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling and whether a certain National Academy of Sciences study constituted newly discovered evidence which should have extended the start date for the running of his limitations period. The court held that counsel's miscalculation of the deadline was a "garden variety claim" of neglect and did not warrant equitable tolling. The court also held that the study did not raise any new issues and could not be considered a new fact on which appellant may base his habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. An attorney's miscalculation of the filing deadline is not an extraordinary circumstance permitting equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's one-year statute of limitations; extension of the deadline was not warranted because the study on which Rues wished to base his habeas claim cannot be considered a new fact.
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.