Vanice Heath v. John Ault, No. 08-2388 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. District court did not err in finding Heath failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to toll the one-year limitations period applicable to his 2254 petition.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2388 ___________ Vanice Terrell Heath, Appellant, v. John F. Ault, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 8, 2009 Filed: September 11, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Vanice Terrell Heath appeals the district court s1 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The district court granted a certificate of appealability, and we affirm. The parties agree that Heath s conviction became final on January 1, 1998; that he did not file his federal petition within one year of that date, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); and that his state application for postconviction relief did not toll the 1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. limitations period, as it was not filed until November 12, 1999, see id.(d)(2). Heath argues, however, that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he had a learning disability in reading and he was unaware of the applicable deadlines. We first reject the state s argument that the equitable-tolling doctrine is no longer valid for purposes of section 2244(d). See Earl v. Fabian, 556 F.3d 717, 722 (8th Cir. 2009) (§ 2244(d) is true statute of limitations rather than jurisdictional bar). We agree with the district court, however, that Heath did not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary to equitably toll the limitations period. See Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (equitable tolling provides exceedingly narrow window of relief (quoting Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 805) (8th Cir. 2001))); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling is appropriate only if extraordinary circumstances beyond prisoner s control made timely petition impossible or defendant s conduct lulled prisoner into inaction). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
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.
