2009 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 1-16-2009 

# S alee m v . Roy H e ndricks P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4695

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ale e m v . Ro y H e ndr ick s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2020. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2020T he H onor abl e Thom as Sel byE l l i s , I I I , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r t h e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f V ir g in ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 05- 4695

____________ AB DU L W ALI SALEEM a / k / a M AR K ANT HONY, A p p e llan ts

v. RO Y L . HE NDR I CK S ; P E T E R C . HAR VE Y, THE A TTOR NEY GEN ERA L OF THE STATE O F NEW J ERSEY

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 00928) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary9, 2009 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a nd ELL I S, D is tr i ct Judge * Fi l ed: J anuary16, 2009

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . A b d u l W a li S a le e m a p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s a s u n tim e ly. W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. A s w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the pr ocedur al cont extand fa ctual hi s t oryof the ca s e, w e r ecountonl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our deci s i on. A N ew J er s eyj uryconvi ct ed Sal eem of fi r s t - degr ee mur derand r el at ed w eapons char ges . Sal eem unsuc ces s ful l yappea l ed hi s convi ct i on t o the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of the Super i orC our t , and the Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s eydeni ed hi s pet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on on M ay12, 1992. T hr ee da y s l at er , Sal eem pet i t i oned forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pur s uant t o N ew J er s eyC our tR ul e 3: 22- 2. A ft era hea r i ng befor e a di ffe r entSuper i orC our tj udge th a n th e o n e w h o p re s id e d o v e r h is tr ia l, S a le e m ’s p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p e titio n w a s d e n ie d . T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the Super i orC our t , and the N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on on Sept ember16, 1997. O n N ovember12, 1997, Sal eem fi l ed hi s fi r s tpet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , r ai s i ng fourgr ounds for reli ef. F ind ing S alee m ’s pe ti ti o n m ixed u n d er R os e v. Lundy , 455 U . S. 509 ( 1982) , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d it w ith o u t p re ju d ice o n A u g u st 1 0 , 1 9 9 8 , so th a t S a lee m c o u ld br i ng hi s unexhaus t ed cl ai m s i n s t at e court . T he St at e conc edes thatbeca us e of a pr obl em3

w i th the pr i s on m ai l s y s t em, Sal eem di d notr ece i ve a c opyof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der unt i l J ul y7, 1999. T h e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t S a lee m w a ited u n til M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 to f ile h is p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on and then fi l ed an a ddi t i onal pet i t i on on A ugus t16, 2001. T he Super i orC our tdeni ed r el i ef on Sept ember6, 2001. O n appea l , the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on found thatSal eem’ s pos t - convi ct i on pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed and thatthe i s s ues r ai s ed ther ei n s houl d have be en r ai s ed on di r ectappea l . T he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tdeni ed Sal eem’ s pet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on on N ovember18, 2003. O n February23, 2004, Sal eem r eturned t o fede r al courtt o fi l e the habe as pet i t i on a t issu e in th is c a se . R e c o g n izin g th a t h is p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly , S a lee m so u g h t eq u itab le t ol l i ng, butthe D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Sal eem’ s m ot i on and di s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on. II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e d e n ial o f a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s a s u n tim e ly p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 , a n d o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. See McAl ees e v. B r ennan, 4 8 3 F . 3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he A nti t err ori sm and E ffecti ve D eat h P enaltyA ctof 1 99 6 (A E D P A ) i m po ses a one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus chal l engi ng a s t at e courtact i on. 28 U . S. C . § 2244. R el evantt o thi s appea l , the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run on “the dat e on w hi ch the j udgm entbeca m e fi nal bythe concl us i on of di r ectr evi ew orthe expi r at i on of the t i m e fors eeki ng s uch r evi ew . ” 284

U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . H ow ever , the l i m i t at i ons per i od i s t ol l ed for“the t i m e dur i ng w h ic h a p ro p e rl yf

ile d a p p lic a tio n f

o r S ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n o r o th e r c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . . . is pe n d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). A s a re su lt , S alee m ’s on e-y ea r pe ri o d d id n o t st art ru n n in g u n til th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied h is p e tit io n f o r c e rtific a tio n o n h is pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef c l ai m on Sept ember16, 1997. In a d d iti o n to sta tu to ryto lli n g , the sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is a lso su b

jec t to e q u itab le to llin g . See Mi l l er v. N . J. Stat e D ep’tof C orrs. , 1 4 5 F .3 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 8 -1 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). Such t ol l i ng i s appr opr i at e “onl yi n the r ar e s i tuat i on w her e equi t abl e t ol l i ng i s demanded bys ound l egal pr i nci pl es as w el l as the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce. ” Jones v. Mor t on , 195 F. 3d 1 5 3 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e loo k to se e w h ethe r th e p arty“h as in so m e e x tr ao rdin ary w aybeen pr event ed fr om as s ert i ng hi s orherr i ght s . ” B r ow n v. Shannon , 322 F. 3d 768, 773 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . O ne s uch pot ent i al l yextr aor di narys i tuat i on i s w her e a c our thas m is le d a p a rt yre g a rd in g th e s te p s th a t th e p a rt yn e e d s to ta k e to p re s e rv e a c la im . See Ba ldwi n Co u n t

y We l c o me Ctr . v . Br o wn , 4 6 6 U. S . 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . F o ri n s t a n c e , we h av e h eld th at w h ere a p eti ti o n er’s firstp eti ti o n w as d ism issed b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt e rro n e o u slyb e liev e d h e c o u ld re tu rn to e x h a u st h is c laim s in sta te c o u rt, th e p e tit io n e r is e n title d to e q u ita b le to llin g . See Bri ns on v. V aughn , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). N everthel es s , t o i nvoke equi t abl e t ol l i ng, a pet i t i onerm us ts how thathe exe r ci s ed re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e in in v e s tig a tin g a n d b ri n g in g h is c la im s . N ew C as t l e C ount

y v. H al l i bur t on N U

S C or p. , 111 F. 3d 1116, 1126 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . “Thi s obl i gat i on does notS a le e m ’s a p p e lla te b ri e f d o e s n o t a lle g e th a t h e f ile d a p e titio n in O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 . 1 R ather , the St at e’ s br i ef a l l udes t o s uch a f i l i ng and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on bel ow d isc u ss e d th e f

a c tu a l d isp u te r e g a rd in g th e O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 p e tit io n . T o its c re d it, th e S tate acknow l edges Sal eem’ s cont ent i on atthe D i s tr i ctC our tthathe fi l ed a pr o s e p o stco n v ict ion p eti ti o n o n O ctob er 1 , 1 9 9 9 . N o d o cu m en ts r elati n g to this all eg ed fil ing are i n the r ecor d and none w er e found bythe St at e. H ow ever , ther e i s a l ett er , dat ed J ul y17, 2000, fr om the O ffi ce of the Publ i c D efe ndert o the N ew J er s eys t at e courtthati ndi cat es thatSal eem fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on on an uns peci fi ed dat e. T he St at e corr ect l yar gues t hat thi s r ecor d i s i ns uffi ci entt o s how thatSal eem actual l yfi l ed a pe t i t i on i n 1999. 5 pert ai n s ol el yt o t he fi l i ng of the fe der al habea s pet i t i on, r atheri ti s an obl i gat i on that exi s t s dur i ng the per i od appel l anti s exhaus t i ng s t at e courtr emedi es as w el l . ” LaC ava v. K yl er , 398 F. 3d 271, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “M er e exc us abl e negl ecti s nots uffi ci ent . ” Mi l l er , 145 F. 3d at619 ( ci t i ng Irw i n v. D ep’tof Veter an s A f f air s , 4 9 8 U .S . 8 9 , 9 6 (1 9 9 0 )) . H e re , S a lee m w a ited a lm o st tw o y e a rs f ro m th e d a te o n w h ich h e lea rn e d th a t h is fi r s tpet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce ( J ul y7, 1999) t o fi l e forpos t - convi ct i on re lief in sta te c o u rt (M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 ). T h is la p se o f tim e d id n o t co n stitu te r e a so n a b le d ilig e n c e . C

f . Mer r i t tv. B lai ne , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (re jec tin g e q u itab le t ol l i ng forl ack of

di l i gence w her e pet i t i onerw ai t ed tw o y ear s t o fi l e habe as pet i t i on aft er s t at e r el i ef w as no l ongervi abl e) . T hough Sal eem cl ai m s he fi l ed a pro se p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on i n O ct ober1999, ther e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthat as s ert i on. T he bur den l i es on t he pet i t i onert o pr ove thathe has been r eas onabl ydi l i gent

1 in p u rs u in g h is p e titio n , s ee U r ci nol iv. C athel , 546 F. 3d 269, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and Sal eem has pr es ent ed no evi dence thatw oul d i ndi cat e thathe w as r eas onabl ydi l i gent b e c a u s e u n s u p p o rt e d a lle g a tio n s d o n o t c o n s titu te s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . See M

ors e v.6

L o w e r Me rio n Sc h . D ist. , 132 F. 3d 902, 906 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . A ddi t i onal l y , aft erhi s fi nal r eques tforpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as r ej ect ed bythe N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t , Sal eem w ai t ed overtw o m onths t o r eturn t o the D i s tr i ctC our tw i th hi s s econd ha beas pet i t i on. Sal eem ar gues atl ength t hathi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed i n err or . E ven a s s u m in g , ar

guendo , thatSal eem i s corr ect , i ti s i m m at er i al t o the ques t i on of w hetherhe e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e in b rin g in g b o th h is s tate p o st-c o n v ictio n p e tit io n a n d th is habea s pet i t i on. B eca us e Sal eem di d notpur s ue hi s cl ai m w i th r eas onabl e di l i gence , t he Di s tr i c tCo u r td i d n o te r ri n d e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s tf o re q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l a f f i r m th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f S a l e e m ’ s p e t i t i o n a s u n t i m e l y.