Famous v. Fuchs

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in dismissing on timeliness grounds defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his sexual assault of child convictions, where applicable one-year limitations period for filing habeas petition began in February of 2002, and defendant waited until August of 2010 to file instant habeas petition. While defendant argued that he was entitled to statutory tolling because prison law library never informed him of existence of instant one-year limitations period, which created impediment to filing timely habeas petition, Ct. of Appeals held that statutory tolling did not apply, since defendant failed to provide any information regarding his interactions with prison law library personnel to support claim that personnel created any impediment to defendant filing timely petition. Dist. Ct. could also properly deny defendant’s claim to equitable tolling, even though defendant argued that: (1) his appellate counsel retained his case file until June of 2005; (2) he gave case file to jailhouse lawyer, and file was retained by prison authorities until April of 2007, due to transfer of jailhouse lawyer; and (3) certain mental health problems precluded him from filing timely habeas petition. None of defendant’s proffered reasons constituted extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from filing timely habeas petition, since: (1) defendant did not proceed with diligence once he had received file from his counsel; (2) defendant must bear responsibility for time file was with jailhouse lawyer; and (3) none of defendant’s submitted medical records indicated that he was incapable of filing habeas petition.