06- 5438
- pr

Shaba zzv. F ilion UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A PP E ND I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 6 dayof D ece m ber , tw o t hous and t en. th P RE S E NT : J OS E P H M
. M c L AUGHL I N,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E
. L YNC H,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RA HEEM SHA BA ZZ, P et i t i oner -Appel l ant ,

v. N o. 06- 5438- pr GAR Y H. F I L I ON, R es pondent

-Appel l ee .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FO R A PPE L L A N T : St ephen Lance C i m i no, E s q. , Syr acus e, N ew Y or k. F O R A P P E L L E E : P r i s c i l l a S t e w a r d , A s s i s t a n t At t o r n e yGe n e r a l ( Ba r b a r a D. U n d e rw o o d , S o licito r G e n e r a l, R o s e a n n B . M a c K e c h n ie, D e p u ty S o lic ito r G e n e ra l f

o r C ri m in a l M a tte rs , on th e b r i ef ), f orA ndr ew M
. C u o m o , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e S t a t e o f N e w Y o r k , A l b a n y, N ew Y or k.T h e d is tr ict c o u rt h a d o rig in a llyc o n c lu d e d th a t S h a b a z z ’s p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly 1 under 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) , w hi ch r equi r es t hat a pet i t i on be fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof “t h e d a t e o n whi c h t h e j u d g me n tb e c a me f i n a l b yt h e c o n c l u s i o n o f d i r e c tr e v i e w orthe expi r at i on of the t i m e fo r seeki ng s uch r evi ew . ” O n appea l , w e r emanded fort he di s tr i ct co u rtto d eterm ine th e ti m eli n ess o f S h ab az z’s c lai m p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(D ), w hi ch r ecogni zes a pet i t i on as t i m el yi f fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof “the dat e on w h ic h t he fac tual pr edi cat e of the cl ai m orcl ai m s pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough t he exer ci s e of due di l i gence . ” See Shaba zz v. Fi l i on, N o . 0 2 -26 42 ( O r derof J ul y21, 2003 is s u e d a s m a n d a te o n A u g . 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 ). 2 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (L a w re n c e E . K a h n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tt h e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n S e p t e mb e r2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , i s AF F I RMED
. Rahe e m Sh a ba z z i s pr e s e nt l y s e r vi ng a pr i s on t e r m of t w e nty y e a r s t o li fe as a per s i s t entfel onyoffe nderas a r es ul tof hi s 1996 N ew Y or k St at e convi ct i on aft er a j uryt r i al of sec o n d d eg ree r obbery . See N
. Y
. Penal L aw § 160. 10( 2) ( b)
. O n thi s appea l , he chal l enges t he di s m i s s al of hi s 2002 habea s corpus pet i t i on forr el i ef f r om thatconvi ct i on,
a r g u i n g th a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n u n t i m e l yu n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( D ) beca us e Shabaz z fa i l ed t o exer ci s e due di l i gence i n s ecur i ng a pr os ecut i on
w i tnes s ’ s r eca nt at i on t hat w as t he bas i s for t he pet i t i on. A l t ernat i vel y , Shabazz ar gues t hat 1

e q u ita b le to llin g s h o u ld e x c u s e h is u n tim e ly f ilin g . W e re v iew d e n o v o a d istric t c o u rt’s d e c isio n to d e n ya h a b e a s p e tit io n . S e e M a n n ix

v. P hil l i ps, 61 9 F
. 3d 18 7, 19 5 (2d C i r. 20 10 ). W here, as here, the d i stri ctcou rtcon du ct s a hear i ng and makes fac tual fi ndi ngs r el evantt o an ass es s m ent of t i m el i nes s undera pr ovi s i on3

of § 2244( d) , w e re vi ew t hos e fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , s ee i d. ; H emstr eetv. G r ei ner , 491 F. 3d 84 , 89 (2d C i r. 20 07 ), bu tw e ult i m at el yrevi ew de n ov o the l egal quest i on of w hethertho se fac t s demonstr at e t i m el i nes s , s ee Fer nandez v. A r tuz, 402 F. 3d 111, 112 ( 2d C i r . 2005)
. O ur pr e c e d e n t h a s n o t c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d whe t h e r t h e e x e r c i s e o f d u e d i l i g ence under § 2244( d) ( 1) ( D ) r ai s es a quest i on of l aw , fac t , or both. See, e. g. , W i m s v. U ni t ed St at es , 225 F.3d 1 8 6 , 1 9 0
- 91 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( i ndi cat i ng that“the dat e on w hi ch the l i m i t at i ons cl ock b e g a n to tic k is a f

a c t- s p e c if

ic is s u e ” th a t is “ a p p ro p ri a te ly an s w e re d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ,” b u t n o tin g th a t p e tit io n e r’s d e lay i n d isc o v e rin g f a c tu a l p re d ica te w a s n o t so “ u n re a so n a b le thati tpl ai nl yappea r s fr om t he fa ce of [the] pet i t i on”)
. W e need not concl us i vel y deci de the is s u e h ere b ec au se e v en ap p ly ing the s tand ard o f re v iew m o st fav o rab le t o S h ab az z, i
. e.,
r evi ew i ng t he di s t r i ct court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , butdeci di ng de novo w hether th o s e f a c ts m a n if

e s t d u e d ilig e n c e , w e w o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t h is p e titio n i s u n t im e ly. W e
r evi ew a deni al of equi t abl e t ol l i ng for abus e of di s cr et i on, s ee Bel otv. B ur ge, 490 F. 3d 201, 206- 07 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , m i ndful t hats uch t ol l i ng i s w arr ant ed onl y i n “r ar e and exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s , ” W al kerv. J as t r emski , 430 F. 3d 560, 564 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m arks om i t t ed)
. I n appl y i ng t hes e pr i n ciples, w e pr es um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t or y , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. 1. Shabazz Fai l ed t o D emonstr at e D ue D i l i gence T h e tim e li n e s s o f

S h a b a z z ’s p e tit io n d e p e n d s o n h is “ e x e rc ise o f d u e d ili g e n c e ” in di s cover i ng t he fa ctual pr edi cat e forhi s cl ai m . 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( D )
. ShabazzT h e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t S h a b a z z w a s re q u ire d to sh o w th a t h e c o u ld n o t, 2 w ith re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e , h a v e lea rn e d o f M ich a e l S h a c k e tt’s w ill in g n e ss to re c a n t p rio r to O ct ober28, 2000. T hi r t y - s i x day s el aps ed betw een the dat e thatShabazz r ece i ved M i chae l Shackett ’ s aff

i davi t( J anuary6, 2001) and w hen he f i l ed a N
. Y
. C ri m . P
. L aw § 440. 10 m o tio n in sta te c o u rt (F e b ru a ry 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 ). T h e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w a s to lled u n til th e d a te th a t th e A p p e ll a te D iv isio n d e n ied S h a b a z z lea v e to a p p e a l th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is § 4 4 0
. 1 0 m o t i o n ( O c t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 )
. T h e l i m i t a t i o n s c l o c k r a n f o ra n a d d i t i o n a l 2 5 9 d a ys unt i l Shabazz ’ s habea s pet i t i on w as deemed fi l ed (J ul y 10, 2002)
. T hus , fr om t he dat e that Shabazz r ece i ved M i chae l Shackett ’ s aff i davi tunt i l he fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on, a t ot al of 295 day s el aps ed, l eavi ng s eventyday s r emai ni ng on t he one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od. C ount i ng b a c k se v e n ty d a y s f

ro m Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 1 , y ield s O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 . S h a b a z z d o e s n o t d isp u te the d i stri ctcou rt ’s cal culat i on s. 4 c o n c e d e s th a t th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g d u e d i l i g e n c e re s ts w ith p e titio n e r. S e e , e .g ., Jo h n so n v . U n ited S tate s, 5 4 4 U .S . 2 9 5 , 3 1 1 (2 0 0 5 ) (in d ica tin g th a t, w h e re f a c tu a l p re d ica te forhabea s cl ai m w as i n exi s t ence fors om e t i m e, pet i t i onerhad obl i gat i on t o expl ai n w hyhe di d nott ake a ct i on t o di s coverpr edi cat e ea r l i er )
. T he factual pr edi cat e forShabazz ’ s pet i t i on is tw o -fo ld: ( 1 ) 18 -y ea r old p rose cu ti o n w itn ess M ic h a e l S h a c k ett , the s o n o f p eti ti o n er’s gi r l fr i end B arbar a Shacke t t , purpor t edl yl i ed w hen he t es t i fi ed att r i al t hathe found a bl ack pel l e t g u n i n t h e t ru n k o f Sh a b a z z ’ s c a r a f e w d a y s a f

t e r p e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t ed fort he rob b eryat i ssu e; an d (2) i n a Jan u ary 2 , 2 0 0 1 af fid av it , M icha el S h ac k ettstat ed that “the re
w as no gun” and thathe had f al s el yt es t i fi ed t o thateff ec tbeca us e of c oer ci on fr om t he p ro se c u tio n . T h e se c o n d f a c t, M ich a e l S h a c k e tt’s re c a n tatio n , p ro v id e s th e re q u isite b a sis forShabazz ’ s habea s cl ai m and, t her efor e, pr oper l ycontr ol s cal cul at i on of the one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od under§ 2244( d) ( 1) ( D )
. T he fi r s t fac t , how ever , i s i m por t antt o as s es s i ng 2

w hetherShabazz exer ci s ed due di l i gence beca us e pet i t i oner ’s k n o w le dge of thatfac t5

p rec lud es h im fro m claim ing that h e h ad n o rea so n to inv es tiga te M icha el S h ac k ett ’s

w illin g n e s s to re c a n t h is tr ia l te s tim o n yp ri o r t o re c e iv in g th e a f f id a v it in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 1
. A t th e e v id e n tiary he a rin g h e ld u p o n re m a n d , S h a b a z z ’s tes tim o n y e sta b lish e d th a t in the foury ear s betw een hi s t r i al and t he fi l i ng of hi s habea s pet i t i on, he made abs ol ut el yno ef fo rtto co n tact M icha el S h ac k ett , d ir ec tl yo r th ro u g h interm ed iari es, m u ch less to se cu re h is re c a n tatio n . W e d o n o t h e re su g g e st th a t d e f e n d a n ts m u st, a s a m a tter o f c o u rse , reg u lar ly

s ol i ci tr eca nt at i ons t o demonstr at e due di l i gence under§ 2244( d) ( 1) ( D )
. B ut , in thi s cas e, Shabazz had a l ongs t andi ng r om ant i c relati ons hi p w i t h B arbar a Shacke t t , the r eca nt i ng
w i tnes s ’ s m ot her
. A l t hough Shabazz ap p are n t l ydi s cus s ed M i chae l Shackett ’ s t es t i m ony
w ith B arb ara S h ac k ett at th e ti m e o f tri al, h e f ail ed to d o so ag ain in the e n su ing fo u r y ea rs d e sp ite th e f

a c t th a t sh e v isited h im in p riso n a p p ro x im a telye v e rytw o w e e k s. N o r d id S hab azz ask B arbar a S hack ettt o speak w i t h h er s on abo ut r ecanti ng his t est i m on y , or r equ est thats he have hers on cont actShabazz
. S hab azz t est i fi ed at t he heari ng t hat his i nacti on did no t beli e du e dil i gen ce bec ause B arb ara S h ac k etth ad o n lyli m it ed co n tact w ith h er son in th e y ea rs af ter th e tri al. F u rth er, Shabazz m ai nt ai ns t hathe di d not w ant t o ups et t he var i ous per s onal r el at i ons hi ps ati s s ue,
or cr eat e an appea r ance of w i t nes s coer ci on. T hus , he s i m pl y w ai t ed un ti l M icha el Shackett ’ s “cons ci ence ” pr oduced a r eca nt at ion
. I n r ej ect i ng t hi s expl anat i on, t he di s tr i ct
cour tfound that Shabazz w as nota cr edi bl e w i t nes s bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s t es t i m ony
a n d th e c o u rt’s o b se rv a tio n o f S h a b a z z a t th e h e a rin g . T h is f in d in g w a s n o t cle a rly6

e rro n e o u s. S e e D o e v . M e n e f e e , 3 9 1 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 6 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); se e a lso A n d e rso n v . C ity

o f B esse m er C ity , 4 7 0 U
. S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 5 (19 8 5 ). In a n ye v e n t, th e a d v e rse f in d in g is re in f

o rc e d b yo th e r re c o rd e v id e n c e th a t ca sts
cons i der abl e doubton t he verybas i s forShabazz ’ s habea s cl ai m : thatM i chae l Shackettw as i m por tuned bypr os ecut or s fal s el yt o t est i fythathe found a gun i n Shabazz ’ s car . W hen B a rb a ra S h a c k e tt t e stif

ied a s a d e f

e n se w itn e ss a t p e tit io n e r’s trial, sh e sta ted th a t h e r so n to ld h e r a b o u t th e g u n s o o n a f te r d isc o v e rin g it. S h e tes tifie d th a t sh e re c o u n ted th is f a c t to S hab azz’s si st er, w ho urged h er t o h a v e o n e o f her sons dis po se of t he w eapo n. T hese event s , al l occurr i ng pr i ort o M i chael S h acket thavi ng anycont actw i t h t he pol i ce or pr os ecut or s , s er i ous l yunderm i ne hi s as s ert i on i n the J anua ry 2 , 2 0 01 aff i davi tt hati tw as p ro se c u to rs w h o c o e rc e d h im to f a b ric a te tes tim o n y a b o u t d isc o v e rin g a g u n . T h e c re d ib ili ty of M i chae l Shackett ’ s affida vi tcoul d notbe t es t ed atthe evi dent i aryhear i ng beca us e he i nvoked h is Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtnott o t es t i fy
. M or e s i gni fi cantt o as s es s i ng due di l i gence , how ever , S h abazz f ai l ed t o cal l B arbar a Shacke t t– the onl yot herper s on w ho coul d have s hed l i ght on hi s due di l i gence cl ai m – as a hear i ng w i t nes s . I ndeed, S h ab azz
s t at ed, i nexpl i cabl y , t hathe fa i l ed eve n t o t el l B arbar a Shacke t taboutthe hea r i ng. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude t hat t he di s t r i ct cour tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that Shabazz fai led to sh o w t hathe coul d notthr ough t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence have d isc o v e re d th e f

a c tu a l p re d ica te f

o r his c laim p rio r to O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , the d a te r e lev a n t to7

e sta b lish in g ti m e lin e ss u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 )(D ). A c c o rd in g ly , the p e tit io n w a s p ro p e rly d i s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e l y. 2. Shabazz Fai l ed t o E s t abl i s h C i r cumst ance s W arr ant i ng E qui t abl e Tol l i ng Shabazz ar gues t hateven i f hi s pet i t i on i s unt i m el y , he i s ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng beca us e of the r ar e and exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s of hi s cas e. W e di s agr ee. N otonl ydoes S h a b a z z f

a i l t o p o i n tt o a n y“ e x t r a o r d i n a r yc i r c u ms t a n c e ” t h a tp r e v e n t e d t i me l yf i l i n g , we concl ude that Shabazz ’ s fai l ur e t o demonstr at e due di l i gence pr ecl udes hi m fr om obt ai ni ng
e q u it a b le r e lie f. S e e H o llan d v . F lo rid a , 1 3 0 S . C t. 25 4 9 , 2 5 6 2 (2 0 1 0 ) (“ [ A ] p e tit io n e r is

e n tit led to e q u itab le to lli n g o n lyif h e sh o w s ( 1 ) th a t h e h a s b e e n p u rsu in g h is rig h ts di l i gent l y , and ( 2) t hats om e extr aor di n ary circ um s t ance s t ood i n hi s w ayand pr event ed t i m el yfi l i ng. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o Saunder s v. Senkow s ki , 587 F. 3d 543, 550 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ; B el otv. B ur ge, 490 F. 3d at207- 08. W e have c ons i der ed Shabaz z’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatt hey

a re w ith o u t m e r it . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e S e p tem b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 ju d g m e n t is AF F I RMED
.
FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt