2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-17-2003 

# H aley v . H e ndr ick s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1599

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H aley v . H e ndr ick s " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 56. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/56NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-1599
CLARENC E HALEY, Appellant

v. RO Y L . HEN DR ICK S, Ad ministrator; JO HN FA RM ER , JR ., AttorneyGeneral of New Jersey App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Civi l No. 00-cv- 04023) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

November 20, 2003 Be for e: R EN DE LL , BA RR Y a nd M AG ILL *, Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed December 17, 2003)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

*Honorable Frank J . Magill , Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.2

RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. Clarence Hale y appea ls fr om his judgment of sentenc e, argui ng that t he District Court erred in dis missi ng his amended petiti on for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Dist rict Cou rt had jurisdiction und er 28 U .S.C. § 225 4. We have jurisdiction to rev iew H aley’s app eal u nde r 28 U.S .C. § § 12 91 a nd 2 253 . W e w ill aff irm. As we write exclus ively for the parti es, we reci te only those fac ts re levant

to the issues before us. On July 16, 1992, a New Jersey trial court convicted Haley of first degree robbe ry and sentenc ed him to 20 y ears i n prison. The AppellateDivisi on affirmed Haley’ s judgment of s entence, and the New JerseySupreme Court deni ed Haley ’s petiti on for certific ation. On February 3, 1997, Hal ey fi led a pro se petit ion for pos t-convi ction reli ef (PCR), which was deni ed. The Appellate Divis ion affi rmed and the New Jersey Supreme Court deni ed Haley ’s petiti on for certific ation on May 3, 1999. On December 27, 1999, Hal ey fi led a pro se petit ion for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in t

he United States Distri ct Court f

or the Dis tri ct of New Jersey(“the f irst petit ion”). On April 5, 2000, the Distri ct Court di smissed Hale y’ s peti tion wit hout prej udice after findi ng that Hal ey had fail ed to exhaust

his state re medies. On August 17, 2000, Haley file d an amended pro se habeas p etition in the District of N ew Jerse y (“the amend ed petition”). Th e District Cou rt dism issed H aley’s am ende d petitio n un der the An ti-Terro rism a nd E ffec tive D eath Pe na lty A ct ( A ED PA ) b ec au se it w as un tim ely. The Distri ct Court di smissed Hale y’ s amended peti tion bas ed onlyupon a revie w1 We note th at the D istrict Co urt did n ot dism iss H aley’s first ha beas petition only

one m onth bef ore his filing dead line. Haley, the Gov ernmen t and the D istrict Court erroneously ass umed that Haley’s fili ng deadline was May 2, 2000 , one yea r from the da te that t he N ew Jers ey Su pre me Co urt d enie d ce rtific ation on H aley’s state PC R re lief. How ever, Haley’s act

ual federal habeas fili ng deadline was July 24, 1999
. This is true bec ause Haley ’s judgment of sentenc e became finalon March 8, 1995, befo re A ED PA ’s ena ctme nt on Ap ril 24, 19 96. T heref ore, H aley had until April 23, 1997 to eithe r file his f edera l habe as pe tition, or p rope rly file a state P CR petition in ord er to toll th e lim itatio ns p erio d. See Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 1998) (hold ing tha t petitione r has u ntil Ap ril 23, 19 97 to file first h abea s petition or pro perly file for st ate re lief

if petiti oner’s s entence bec omes finalbefore AEDPA ’s enactment). Haley file d his st ate PCR petition on February 3, 1997, tol ling t he limi tati ons peri od two months and 21 days before the April 23, 1997 deadli ne. Therefore, Haleyhad two months and 21 days from May 3, 1999, the dat e his st ate PCR reli ef was denied, to fil e for feder al habeas reli ef, making t

he ulti mate deadli ne July 24, 1999 . Both Ha ley’s first petitio n and his am end ed p etitio n w ere f iled a fter this d ead line. 3 of the state co urt reco rd w ithout h olding an ev identia ry hearing . As a result, ou r review is plen ary. Everett v. B eard , 290 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 200 2). Haley c oncedes that his amended petit ion was unti mely. Neverthel ess, he argues that t he District Court

should have cons idered t he merit s of thi s peti tion under the doctri ne of equit able t olli ng because hi s fir st petiti on was erroneousl y di smissed onl y one
mo nth p rior to the one- year dea dline u nder AE DP A, lea ving Ha ley too little time to file his amended petiti on. 1 However, Haley did not r aise t his equi tabletoll ing argument in the Dis trict C our t. Th eref ore , we can not reac h th e m erits o f this arg um ent o n ap pea l. See United States v. Melendez , 55 F.3d 130, 136 (3d Cir. 1995) (holdi ng that when a defendant fai ls t o rais e an iss ue before the dist rict court, the appel latecourt cannot2 We note th at the issu e of w hethe r a cou rt shou ld equ itably toll an A ED PA statute

of lim itatio ns is not a pu re q ues tion of la w. See Drew v. Dep 't of Corr. , 297 F.3d 1278, 1287 (1 1th Cir. 200 2) ( determi nation of whether a partywas dili gent in i nvesti gating and br in gi ng h ercl ai ms is a qu estion o f fac t); Jiminez v. Rice , 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 200 1) (e qui tabl e t ol li ng c laimis not a p ur e q ue stio n of

la w) . Therefore, i t is not a matter we can add ress if the petit ion er fa iled t o ra ise th is arg um ent in the D istrict Co urt. See Johnson v. Hendri cks , 314 F.3d 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2002) (we revi ewed merits of petition er’s eq uitable tolling a rgum ent after Distric t Cou rt ruled o n the m erits); United States v. $ 734,578. 82 in United St ates Currency , 286 F.3d 641, 653 (3d Cir. 2002) (statin g, “ [w]e general lydo not addres s iss ues that are rai sed for the firs t ti me on appeal. ”) ; Jiminez , 276 F.3d at 481 (decli ning to cons ider pet iti oner’s e quitabl e toll ing claim beca use h e failed to argu e it bef ore the Distric t Cou rt); Melendez , 55 F.3d at 136 (refu sing to addr ess issu e on a ppea l that w as no t raised in the D istrict Co urt)
. 4 address it on ap peal). 2 Not onlydid Haleyfail to argue e quitabl e toll ing in t he District Court , but he failed to argue it in his amend ed hab eas petition in respo nse to the G overnm ent’s assertion of the AEDPA one-year st atute of limit ations defense in it s answer. Because Ha ley’s equ itable tollin g claim wa s not ra ised in th e D istrict Co urt, w e w ill not co nside r it for the first t

ime on appeal. Thus, the Distri ct Court order willbe affirmed.5

TO THE CLERK OF COU RT: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.

/s/ M arjorie O . Ren dell Circuit Judge Dated: December 17, 2003