## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2999 D ARRYL S I MM S, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. G E RA RDO A CE VE DO, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C28

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 19, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. B efore us is Darryl Si m m s’s pe t i t i o n f o r a wr i to fh ab e a s c o r pu s p ursuantt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 254. Li ke so m any hab eas cas es , t hi s o ne tur ns not on princi ple s o fco nsti tuti onalo r cri m i nallaw , b ut o n st at e p ro c ed u ra l req u ire m en ts . A t is su e a re tw o p et iti ons that S i m m s fi l ed i n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt. I fei therwas p ro p er ly filed w h en Sim m s c on te n d s itw as , h is fed er al p et i t i o n for h ab ea s c or p u s is tim ely an d sh ou ld2 N o. 07

- 2999 be a dd re sse d on the m er i ts. But i fnot, S i m m s’ s federa l peti ti on i s ba rr ed by the Antit er ro ri sm and Effe c ti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( A ED PA ) , 28 U
. S. C. § 2 244( d)( 1) , unl ess hi s ci rcum sta nces m er i t e quit abl e t ol l i ng o fthe l i m i tat i o ns p e r i o d. Si m m s was co nvi cted in 198 5 o fm urd er , a ggr avat ed cr i m i na l sex ua la ss au l t, r o bb ery, ho m e i nv as i o n, a nd r es i d e n t i a lb u r g l a r y . Aft e r a b e n c h t r i a l, h e wa s s en t e nc e d t o de a th. On a pp e a l, hi s c o nv i c t i o n w as af fi r med , but hi s s entence was vaca ted and the cas e w as re m anded to the t ri alco urt. On r em and, he was aga i n sent enced to dea th, th i s t i me b y a j u r y . He a p p e a l e d a g a i n a n d the case was re m anded ag ai n beca use o fa bad j ury i n structi on. On re m and, he was aga i n sent enced to de at h b y a j ur y . He a ppea l ed, the de ath s en te nc e was a ffi r m ed, a nd c e r t i o r a r iwa s de ni e d. I n 1 9 9 5 , wh i l e h i s a pp e a l s we r e p e nd i ng, S i mm s fi l e d a p ro se p et itio n for p os t-c on vic ti o n r elie f in Illin ois circ u it c o u r t
. In Ma y 1 9 9 7, h e a me n d e d h i s p e t i t i o n, th i s t i me w ith th e h e l p of co u n se l. InA u gu st 19 98 , th e p et iti o n was di smi ss ed. S i m m s appe al ed to the Il l i no i s S up re m e C ou rtan d th e c ou rt r e m a n d ed th e c as e, in A ugust 2 000, to the ci rcui t cou rt w i th i nstr ucti ons to hol d an evi denti ar y hea ring o n Si m m s’ s Brady v . M aryl and cl ai m s. In J anuary20 03, I l l i nois’s then- gov er nor, Geor ge Ryan, co m m uted Si m m s’s d eath sent ence ( and those o f al lI l l i no i s’ s ca pi ta l o ffen der s) t o a t er m o fl i fe i m pr isonm ent without the poss ibi l i ty of p arol e. S i m m s withd re w hi s Bradyclai m s on Jun e 22, 2004 , be fore th e evide nt iary h ea rin g w as h eld ; Sim m s s ta t e s th at h e w ith d re w h isN o. 07

- 2999 3 p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e h e d i d n o twa ntto j e o p a r d i z e th e c o mm ut ation o f h is sen ten ce. On J uly 7, 2004 , the trial cou rt enter ed an o rd er acknow l edgi ng the withdrawal o f Si m m s’ s cl ai m s in I l l i noi s s tat e co urt. A p p ar en tly h is fear s reg ar d in g th e com m u ta tio n of h is sente nce were ass uaged so m eti m e around J une 7, 20 05, because atthatpoi nt ( al though the exac t d at e is not cl earf orr eas ons disc ussed bel ow), S i m m s a tte m pted to fi l e a p r o s e p e t i t i o n f o r h ab e a s r e l i e fi n the R a nd o l ph County C irc u i t Cour t. A tta ched to the pet i ti on was an appli c at ion to proce ed i n f or m a pauperi s. A ro und thr ee w eek s l ate r ( once aga i n, the ti m e i s in d et er m i nate bec au se th e pe titio n w as ne ver fi le stam p ed by the clerk) , i n a l ett erdated June 30, 2005, the Rand ol ph C ounty Cir cui t Cour t cl er k r etur ned Si m m s’ s peti ti on be cause he h a d n o ts ub mi t t e d a fi l i ngfe e o r the n e c e s s a r y c o py o fh i s t r u s ta c c o u n tb a l a n c e t o s u p p o r th i s i n f o r ma pau per i s appl i ca ti o n. O n Ju ly 1 , 200 5, th e s am e d ay Sim m s re c eiv ed h is r ej e c t e d ap p l i c a t i o n, h e r e s u b mi t t e d th e p r o s e c o mpla i nt f orhabea s r el i ef

. The co urt accepte d the filing of the pet itio n on thi s date

. But, the tr i alco urt l ate r dism i sse d the co m pla i nt o n the m er i ts; the d ism i ssa lwas affir m ed b y t h e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rt, Si m m s v. U ch t m an , N o. 5- 05- 0561 ( I l l

. A p p . Ct. J une 5, 20 06) ( unp ubl i shed or der) , and the I l l inoi s S up re m e Cour t deni ed l eave to ap p ea l on N ov em b er 29 , 200 6. Sim m s im m ed i a te ly fi l ed a pet i ti o n fo r r eh ea r i ngb uti t was r ej ec te d b y the cl er k o fthe I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t o n Decem ber29 , 20 06. By this p oi nt, S i m m s had al re ady fi l ed hi s federa l habeas peti ti on. H e di d so on Decem ber7, 20 06.4 N o. 07

- 2999 T he fed eral petition w as d ism issed b y t he district cou rt on a fi nd i ngtha ti twa s u nt i mel y u nd e r the o ne - yea r s t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns e s t ab l i s he d b y AEDP A. 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2244 ( d)( 1)

. The cour t deter m i ned that Si m m s’s on eyea r cl ockst ar ted o n J uly7, 20 04, wh i ch w as the day th e I l l i no i s tr i alc o urt i ss ue d a n o r dera ckno wl edg i ng that Si m m s had withdrawn his post
- convi cti on cl ai m s. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not sto p the cl ock unti lJ uly1, 20 05, w h ich th e c ou rtfou n d w as th e d a t e S im m s p ro p er ly fi l ed hi s co m pla i nt f orst ate habea s r el i ef

. This w as 35 8 da ys aft erthe cl ockst ar ted

— so at thi s point he had se ve n d a y s le ft. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtto lled th e c loc k u n til No v e mb e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , w h i c h i s w h e n th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t den i ed S i m m s’ s pet i ti o n fo r l ea ve t o a ppea l

. The dist ri ct c ourtr efused to to l lS i m m s’ s l i m i tat i ons peri od for th e p et itio n for re h e a r i n g t h at Sim m s filed im m ed iate l y a fterh is peti ti on f orl eave to appealwas denie d by the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t. T h u s, o n N ove m ber30 , acc or ding to the di str i ct c ourt, the c l ockst ar ted agai n and Si m m s fi l ed hi s habe as appeal on Decem ber7, 20 06

— eight d ays later. Th e d istri ct cou rt the r e f o r e f o un d tha tS i mm s had mi s s e d the de a dl i ne byo ne day. The co urt then co nsi dered wh ether th e s t a t ut e s ho ul d b e e qu i t ab l y t o l l e d a nd f o un d tha t it s h ou ld n otbe c au se Sim m s h ad n otp u rs u ed h is ri ghts dil i gently. The co urt thus di sm iss ed the peti ti on as unti m el y a nd di d not r each the m er i ts. S i m m s a pp eal s. W e r ev i ew the decisio n t o di smi ss a habe as c o r pus peti ti on a s unti m el y deno vo . M oorev. Knight, 368 F. 3d 936, 938 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)

. S i m m s cl ai m s that the AE DP A l i m i ta-N o. 07

- 2999 5 t i o ns p e r i o d s ho ul d ha v e b e e n t o l l e d du r i ngt wo p e r i o ds

— w h en h is s ta te h ab ea s p et itio n w as se n t t o th e I l l i n ois ci rcui t co urt cl er k on J une 7, 20 05, and w hen hi s peti ti on for rehe aring w as sen t to the I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt clerk on N ove m ber 29, 2006
. Both of these peti ti ons, h e argues, we r e p r o p e r l y fi l e d ; th u s , u n d e r th e t e r ms o fAE DP A, h is fe d er al p et it i o n is tim ely

. See 28 U
. S. C. § 2 244( d)( 2) ( tol l i ng the st atute o fl i m i tat i ons w hen “a proper l y fi l ed appli cati on f orS tat e pos t- convi cti on o r othe r col latera l r e v i e w . . . i s p e n d i n g ” )

. In th e a l t e r n a t i v e , S i mms ar gu es that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on in not apply i ngthe do ct r i ne o fe qui tabl e to l l i ngt o hi s pet i ti o n.
I . Wa s t he J une 7,2 0 0 5 Pe t i t i o n P r o pe r l yF i l e d? Si m m s co ntends thathe m ai l ed hi s stat e habe as peti ti on on J une 7, 20 05, and i t s houl d be deem ed fi l ed on that date u n d er Il lin ois ’s m ailb ox ru le. See P eop le v . S a un ders , 63 3 N
. E.2 d 1340, 13 41- 42 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 94). Si m m s a rgues th atde spi te hi s f ai l ur e to a tt ac h a c opy o fhi s trus t fund le d g e r, th e c irc u it c ou rtw as req u ire d to ac c ep t h is p et itio n u n d er Il lin ois law , an d th e r efo re it w as p ro p er ly fi l ed. The r ej ecti on o fthe appli cati on, he a rgues, was in error. U n d er I l l i noi s l aw , the cour t cl er k was r equi re d to “acce pt and file an y c om pla i nt, appeara nce, o r othe r paper pre sente d by the app li cant i facc om panie d by a n appl i ca ti o n t o s ue o r de fen d i n fo r m a pau per i s, a nd th o se p ap ers sh al lb e co ns i der ed fi l ed o n the da te the ap p li cation i s p resen ted

. ” 735 Il l. Com p . Stat. 5/5-105(e). The “ appl i ca ti o n” t o s ue i s r equi r ed to “ be i n wr i tinga nd6 N o. 07

- 2999 supp or ted by the affi davi t ofthe appli cant. ” Id. 5/5-105(c). The cour t cl er k r el i ed on Ad m i ni str ati ve Order 90-7 of the Ci rcui t Cour t o fRan d olp h County, wh i ch r equi re s in m at es se ek in g t o p ro c ee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris to su b m it a copy o fthei r tr ust fund l edgeras parto fthei r affi davi t. B ecau se Sim m s d id n ot includ e the trust fun d l ed ger, th e cl er kr ej ec te d the a ppl i ca ti o n. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as h e l d th at failu re to co m p ly w ith certain state law requ irem en ts d oes ind ee d r e n d er a p et itio n im p ro p er ly filed

. P a c ev . Di G u g l i e l mo , 54 4 U.S

. 40 8, 413 ( 2005 ) (h ol ding that unti m el y s tat e pos tco nvi cti on m oti ons ar e no t co nsi dered “pr oper l y fi l ed” fo r purposes of A E D P A ). B ut see A rt uz v. B enne tt, 53 1 U .S. 4, 8 ( 2000 ) (h oldi ng tha t pet i ti ons f orst ate r el i efthatco ntain c laim s t h at are p r o c ed u ra lly b ar re d m ay st ill be p ro p er ly fi l e d )

. I n P a ce, the Suprem e Cour t no ted speci fi cal l y that th e f o r m alr equi r ement s f o r mos t pet i ti o ns a r e no t en tru ste d t o t h e clerk’s d iscretion, bu t m us t be later det erm in ed by th e jud ge . P ace, 544 U
. S. at 415 & n. 5. T h e p et iti oner ’ s a rgum ent in that case was that only p eti ti o ns rej ec te d by th e c ler k c ou ld be d ec lar ed im p ro p er ly fi l e d u n d e r AE DP A. S i m m s’ s ar g um en t i s so m ew hat th e i nv er se o fthe l o s i n go n e i n P ace . The cl er k, he s ays , was re quir ed to fi l e hi s peti ti on w hether or not i t m et the req u i re d f or m and ther ef ore th e pet i ti on s houl d be co nsi dered fi l ed w hen subm i tte d to the clerk. To the exte nt that S i m m s ar g ue s th atthe pe r i o d b etwee n the t i m e th e c ler k rec eiv ed th e pe tit ion an d rej ec te d it as i m p r op er ly filed s h o u ld be to lled , w e c an rejec t t h at ou t o f h an d . InN o. 07

- 2999 7 P ace, the Su p rem e C ou rt for ec los ed su c h a c on te n tio n . See P ace , 5 44 U. S

. a t 41 4 ( r ej ec tingthe no ti o n tha t th e “pro per fi l i ng” of a peti ti on i s dete rm i ned base d on i ts acc ep tan ce by a clerk). Si m m s, then, m u st be c onte nd i ng tha t the cl er k e rr ed by m i si nter preting st ate law, wh i ch he s ays co m m anded the c l e r kt o a c c e ptthe p e t i t i o n, a nd tha tthe p e t i t i o n was th er efo re pro perl y fi l ed as m ai l ed on J une 7. N otabl y, Si m m s doe s no t o fferev i dence th at h e com pli ed w i th th e l o ca lr ul e o n in fo r m a pau per i s pet i ti o ns , a nd tha t th e cl er k o ver l oo ked hi s co m pli ance. Inst ead, he a rgues that the cl er k was r equi re d to accept the pet i ti on despi te the defi ci ency and ci te s to I l l i noi s l aw f orthe uncontro
ver si alpro posi ti on that a l oca lr ule cannottr um p stat e law

. Vis i on Poin t of Sal e, Inc . v. Haas , 875 N
. E.2 d 1065, 10 80 ( I l l

. 2 00 7) ( Ci r cui t co ur ts i n I l l i no i s ar e ve st ed wi ththe pow er“t o adopt l ocal r ule s g ove rni ng ci vi land cr i m i nal c a s e s s o l o n ga s . . . th e y d o n o tco n fl i c tw i th s u p r e me cou rt rules or statu tes .
. . . ”). On behal fo fthe w ar d en, I l l i noi s a rgues that we m ust defe r to the c l er k’ s in ter preta ti on o fthe I l l i noi s s tatute and i ts re l ati onshi p w i th t h e ci rcui t co urt’ s fi l i ng r equi re m ents. But the cl er k’ s dete rm i nati on of w hethero r not th e pet i ti o n was i m pr o per l y fi l ed i s i m m at er i al ; ha d the c l e r ka c c e pt e d the p e t i ti o n, a nyi nfi r mi t y o fthe ty pe des cr ibe d i n P a ce w ou ld h av e re n d er ed it im p ro p er ly fi l ed. I n f ac t, th e ca se I l l i no i s r el i es o n, Ar t uz , 531 U.S

. at8, m ak es cle ar th at p et itio n s ar e p ro p er ly filed w h en th eir “de l i ver y a nd a cc ept an ce a r e i n c o m pl i an ce wi ththe appli cabl e l aw s a nd r ule s g ove rni ng fi l i ngs. ” F urther m or e,8 N o. 07

- 2999 a fi l i ng tha t i s “ er ro neousl y a ccepted bythe cl er k” i s “ not proper l y fi l ed. ” Id. a t 9. The r efo r e, the c l er k ’ s vi ew o fthe p etition i s not d ispositive. I ll inois asks us to com p are thi s ca se to P ow el l v. D avis , 415 F.3d 722 , 726-27 ( 7 t h C ir. 2005 ) , but P ow el l i nvol ved ourdefer en c e to a s tat e suprem e co urt’s d ete rm i nati on o fwh ethera peti ti on was pr o per l y fi l ed, no t defer en ce t o the co ur t’ s admi ni str ati ve perso nnel

. A cl er k i s no t the exposi tor o f I l l i noi s’ s r ule s, but the a dm i ni str ato r oftho se rul es. I ll inois al so argu es th at th ere is no p roof in the record tha t the pe t i t i o n wa s mai l e d o n J un e 7, j us t proo fthat Si m m s s i gned and had the peti ti on not ar i zed on that date. Thi s ar g um en t ca n a l so b e di sregarde d. I fwe ac ce pt th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e pe ti ti o n was o nl y o ne day l ate , then any pet i ti on pro perl y fi led befo re J uly1 w ou ld all ow Si m m s to avoid th e A E D PA tim e bar. A d d itio n ally , I llin ois cla im s t h at Sim m s w as ac tu ally 28 d ay s la te in filin g h is fe d er al p et i t ion be c au se it w as n ot m aile d fro m th e j ail b u t from a d iffer en t zip code. S i n c e th e pet i ti on was notse nt fro m j ai l, i t was not en ti tl ed to the mai lbo x r ul e es tabl i sh ed byRul e 3( d) o fthe Rules Governi ng S ecti on 22 54 Cases i n the U ni ted S tat es Di st r i ctCo ur ts , whi chpr o vi des f o r fi l i ng via the i ns ti tu
ti on’ s inter n al m ai l i ng sy ste m o n orbefor e the l astday f or fi l i ng. Si nce, I l l i noi s ar gues, the peti ti on w as fi l ed fro m o utsi de the pri son, i t there f or e m ust be co nsi dered fi l ed o n J an ua r y 3 , 2 00 7 when i t w as receive d b y the d ist ric t c ou rt
. SeeU nite d Sta te s v. C raig, 36 8 F
. 3d 738, 74 0- 41 (7th C ir. 2004). Illino is d id n otrais e t h is iss u e b elo w an d t h e r efo re it is f or f e i t e d. AEDP A’ s s t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns i s n o ta j ur i s-N o. 07

- 2999 9 d ict ion al b ar to th e c ou rt ’s p ow er , s e eD ay v. M cDonough , 54 7 U .S. 19 8, 20 5 (2 00 6), alt h ou gh a d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld ra i se the i ssue sua s ponte if it cau gh t a ca lcu lat ion err or . Id. at 210. H er e, however, the ar gum ent r el i es on a ctual phy si ca le vi den ce ( th e po st m ar k ed l et te r ) no t i n the re cor d p re sente d to the di str i ct c ourt; we have no abi l i ty to gauge the ar gum ent’ s m er i ts. So t h er e i s but one questi on

— w hetherI l l i noi s l aw co ns i d ered Si m m s’ s pet i ti o n pr o per l y fi l ed, e ve n i fthe cl er kdi dn’ t. W e no te tha t S i m m s’ s a r g um en t th atthe cl er k was r equi re d to accep t th e pet i ti on i s unavai l i ng; an i m proper l y fi l ed peti ti on doe s not tol lthe sta tute e v e n i fi ti s i n the s t a t e c o ur t ’ s h a nd s

— that i s what P ace t e a c h e s u s . A n d th i s i s th e r e a lp r o b l e m f o r S i mms

— eve n i fth e c l e r kd i d a c c e p tth e p e t i t i o n o n J u n e 7, i tw a s i mproper l y filed for purpos es ofA ED PA i fi t di d not compl y wi th“ th e appl i cabl e l aws a nd r ul es g o ve r ni ng fi l i ngs. ” Art uz , 53 1 U.S

. at8. Despit e S i m m s’ s pro tes ts, the I l l i noi s s tatute o n w hi ch Si m m s r el i es does not confl i ct with the R an dol ph C ounty co ur t’s f i l i ngr equi r ement s. S i m m s ar g ue s th atr el ev an t I l l i no i s l aw, 7 35 I LCS 5/5- 10 5( e) , woul d o nl y r equire the c ler k to h an g on to th e p et itio n, fi le it, an d “[a ]t m os t . .
. re quir e the clerkto co ntact the inm ate and see k the r equir ed i nfo rm ati on. ” Pet
. B r. at21
. But, r ega rdl ess o f w h ether the st atute co m m ands the cl er k in a s i tuati on l i k e S i m m s’ s to fi l e th e pet i ti o n a nd the n a skf o r the re quir ed tr ust fund i nfo rm atio n , o r w hetherthe sta tute allo w s t h e c ler k t o re tu rn th e p et itio n w ith ou t filin g it and then file i t when the pro per tr ust fund i nfo rm ati on10 N o. 07

- 2999 i s i nc l ud e d, S i mm s ’ s p eti t i o n wa s n o tp r o pe r l y fi l e d, f o r pur p oses o fAEDPA , unt i li t co m pl i ed wi th“ th e appli cabl e law s a nd r ule s g ove rni ng fi l i ngs. ” In ei ther scenar i o, ther ef or e, the peti ti on was notpro perl y fi l ed un t i lthe t r us tfun d info r mat i o n wa s i nc l ud e d. F u r t h e rm or e, th e s ta tu te th at Sim m s re lies on is ea sily ha rm onized w ith th e Ra nd olph Cou nt y C ircuit Cou rt ru les . Th e s ta tu te r e q u ire s t h e c ler k t o “ ac c ep t a n d file any c om pla i nt, app ea rance, o r othe r paper pre sente d by th e app li cant i fa cc o m pan i ed bya n a ppl i ca ti o n t o s ue ordefen d i n f or m a pauperi s, and thos e paper s s hal lbe consi dered fi l ed on the date t he appli cati on i s pre sente d. ” 73 5 I LCS 5/5- 10 5( e)

. The s ta tu te r equi r es tha t th e appl i ca ti o n t o sue “ be i n wr i tinga nd s uppo r te d b y the affi davi t o fthe appli cant. ” Id. 5/5- 105( c)

. T h e “conte nts of th e a ff idav it shallbe estab li sh ed by Sup rem e C ou rt Rule. ” Id. R an d olp h C o u n ty C irc u it C ou rtreq u ire s t h at in a ll ci vi lcas es bro ugh t bypoorper sons ( that i s, i nd i gents se ek i ngt o pros ec ut e ana ct i o n wi th o utpa y i ngfi l i ng fees ) , “the peti ti on f orl eave t o su e or defend as a poor p erson sha ll be accom p an ied by a cop y of th e inm ate’s trus t fund l edg eri ndi ca tinga l lde po si ts and wi th

dr aw als m ade t o the i nm at e’ s trus t fund a cc o untf o r the si x m onths im m edi ate l y pr ecedi ng the subm i ssi on o f the pet i ti on. ” Randol ph C ounty Cir

. Ct. A dm i n. Order N o. 9 0-7 . Gi ven that I l l i noi s l aw speci fi cal l y del ega tes th e a u th o r i t y t o e s t ab l i s h “ th e c o n t e n t s ” o fth e i n f o r ma pau per i s affi dav i t to the s ta te s upr eme c o ur t an d tha t th e state sup rem e c ou rt in tu rn d elegates ru le- m aking au th or-N o. 07

- 2999 11 ity to th e c irc u it c ou rt s, an d t h a t Sim m s d oe sn ’t c h all e ng e tha tthi s r ul e wa s v a l i dl y e na c t e d ( a tl e astas a pr o c e du r a lm at t e r ) , we fi nd i twe l lwi thin the R a nd o l ph County Cir cui t Court’ s pu rv i ew und er I l l i noi s law to r equi r e th at al l pet i ti o ns i nc l ude a co py o f th e tru st fund l edger

. G ive n t h at the l oca lr ule the cl er k r el i ed on t o rej ect the peti ti on di d not co nfl i ct with sta te l aw and that the pet i ti on was i nd i spu ta b ly d efi ci ent ( i n that i t di d not m eetthe i n f orm a pauperi s r equi re m ents) , i t was not pr o per l y fi l ed unt i lJ ul y 1, 20 05
. A cc o r di ng l y, the AEDPA l i m i ta ti o ns period was no t to l l ed be twe enJ une 7a nd that date.

I I . Wa s t he Pe t i t i o n f o rRe he a r i ngPr o pe r l yF i l e d? Si m m s al so see ks to tol l the A ED PA l i m i tat i ons p er i od f orthe peri od duri ng wh i ch hi s peti ti on f orr ehear i ng was p en d in g a t t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt . O f co u rs e, h is p eti ti on was neve r re al l y pendi ng; i t was r etur ned thre e we e k s l a t e r b y th e c l e r k ’ s o ffi c e , w h i c h i n f o r me d S i mms that i t was “unabl e t o fi l e” the pe titi on. Rem em berthat Si m m s needs onl y one day of tol l i ng to save hi s case ; i f we t o l lthe p eriod f o r the thr ee wee k s th e cl er kha d the peti ti on, hi s federa lhabea s co rpus cl ai m i s t i m el y. R em em ber also th at w e e xp lai ne d a bove th at th e clerk’s ac ce pta nc e o fa pe ti ti o n i s no t su ffi ci en t to r end erthe peti ti on pro perl y fi l ed. To pr evai l, S i m m s m ust s ucceed w here he f ai l ed re gar ding hi s ini ti alI l l i nois habeas peti ti on di scusse d above ; he m ust s how thatt h e cl er k o f the I l lin oi s S up re m e Cour t e rr ed w hen she re turned hi s peti ti on. Both par ti es assu m e that the cl er k was12 N o. 07

- 2999

un ab l e t o fi l e the p e t i t i o n because i twa s mi s l ab e l e d a “peti ti on f or re hear i ng. ” ( The cl er k’ s actual l et te r to Si m m s i s m or e am b i guous, but si nce nei therparty te as ed o uta n a l te r na ti ve g r o und fo r r ej ec ti o n o fthe p etition fr om the letter, ne ither w il l w e). Sim m s a rgues that the cl er k m i si nter prete d I l l i noi s l aw whi ch, S i m m s cl ai m s, all o ws f o r pe ti ti o ns f o r r eh ea r i ng a ft e r th e d e n i a lo fa p e t i t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l

. S i mms ar gues that the deni alof the peti ti on f orl eave to appeal (PL A ) is a j ud gm en t and as suc h, i s a p r o p e r sub j ect for a p et itio n for re h ea rin g. See Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtR u le 367( a) ( “A peti ti on f orr ehear i ng m ay be filed withi n 21 day s afte r th e fi l i ngo fthe j udg m en t
. . . . ”)

. The r es po nde nt disa gr ees . I n a ca se lik e S i m m s’ s where ther e i s no appealas o f ri ght t o the I llin ois Supre m e Cour t, l eave to appealto that cour t is entruste d to the “ sound j ud i ci aldi scr eti on” of the c ourt
. I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t Rul e 3 15( a)

. Because ofthi s di scr eti on, the Illi noi s S up re m e Cour t has r efused to i nv o k e r es j udi ca ta ba se d o n i ts pr ev i o us den i al of a PLA at an ear l i er sta ge i n the proce edi ng. “ For res judicat a to a ppl y, there m us t ha ve b ee n a fi na lj udg m en t o n the m er i ts ofthe case . Deni al s o fpet itio n s forl eave to appeal ar e no t deci sions on the m er i ts. ” In reL e o n a W. , 888 N
. E.2 d 72, 81 ( I l l

. 200 8); se e also People v. O rt iz , 75 2 N
. E. 2d 41 0, 4 24 ( I l l

. 2 00 1) ( “I t i s wel ls et tl ed th ato ur denia l s o fl eave to a p p ea lar e no t deci si ons on the m er i ts ofthe case . They c ar ryno connot ati on o fappro valo r d isa p p ro va l of th e ap p ella te co u rtac tio n, an d sign ify on ly th at f o urmem be r s o fthi s co ur t, f o r r ea so ns s at i sf ac to ryN o. 07

- 2999 13 to them , have notvo ted to gr ant l eave . ” ( q u ot ati on o m i tted ))

. I l l i no i s l a w i s , the r e f o r e , c l e a r tha tthe de ni a lo fthe P LA i s no t a fi nalju d gm en t. A nd , acc or dingl y, a peti ti on f or re hear i ng i s no t a pro per vehicle t o chal l enge the deni al ofa PLA
. The f act th at , as S i m m s points o ut, we have m i sta kenl y a ssum ed , in di cta, thata peti ti on f or re hear i ng is the properve hi cl e t o chal l enge the deni alo f a PL A , see Jo nes v. H ulick, 449 F.3d 784 , 789 (7th C ir. 20 06 ); Wi l s on v. B a ttles , 3 02 F.3d 74 5, 747 (7th Cir. 2002), does not alt er o ur r esponsibi l i ty to i nter pret the l aw o f I l l i noi s a s the I l l i noi s co urts have

. A s the cl er k no ted w hen it rej ecte d Si m m s’ s p eti ti on f or re hear i ng, a m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on is a vail abl e t o a p et itio n er w h os e P L A w as d en ied

. Se e, e . g. , Peop l ev. Thiv el , 91 6 N
. E.2 d 5 45 (I l l

. 20 09)

. S i m m s fi l ed no s uch p et itio n h er e, an d w e h av e re p ea te d l y h eld th at in I l l i noi s, the ti m e per i od du ring wh i ch a peti tio n f orr econsi derat i on ca n be fi l ed afterthe denia lof a peti ti on f or lea v e t o a p p ea l is n otto lled for p u rp os es of A E D P A
. See Jo nes , 4 49 F.3d at78 9; Wi l s on , 3 0 2 F
. 3 d a t74 7

- 4 8
. At l ea sto ne I l l i no i s c our t o fa ppea l s ha s al so made th e sam e er r o r o fno m en cl atur e th atwe m ade i n Jones an d Wi l s on , se e B utts v. City of P eori a , 504 N .E .2d 54 4, 54 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 87 ), bu t Sim m s d oe s n ot a rg u e t h at Il lin ois co ur ts or di na r i l y t r ea t th e two s epa r at e m o ti o ns iden ticall y and that he w as p reju d iced by the clerk’ s d e c isio n to ch oo se n otto in h is c as e. Ins te ad , he res ts h is c l a i m o n t h e f a c tth a tth e d e n i a lo fa P L A i s a j u d g me n t
. As note d a b ov e, i t i s no t, and the I l l i noi s s tatute i s cl ear

—14 N o. 07

- 2999

re hear i ng i s o nl y a vai l abl e w h en ther e has bee n a j ud gm ent. There f or e, a peti ti on fo r re hear i ng was an i m properfi l i ng after the deni alo fS i m m s’ s l eave to appe al

. A ccor dingl y, A ED PA ’ s l i m i tat i ons peri od w as n otto lled by th e filin g.
II I. S h ou ld th e L im it ations Pe ri od ha ve b een Eq u it ab ly To l l e d? “Equ i tabl e t ol l i ng i s r ar el y g ra nted. ” Tucke rv. King s t on , 53 8 F .3d 73 2, 73 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). “ E q u ita b le t ollin g is g r a n t e d s p a r i n g l y o n l y w h e n e xt r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u mst an c es far b ey on d th e litig an t’ s c on tr ol p re ve n te d tim ely fi l i ng. ” Wils on , 3 02 F
. 3d at749 ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o ns a nd alt er at ion s o m itt ed ); see a lso Tuc k er, 5 38 F
. 3d at7 34 ( no ting th e p a u c i t y o f c a s e s wh e r e we f o u n d i t wa r r a n t e d )

. We re vi ew th e d ec i si on t o deny equi tabl e t ol l i ng f oran ab u se of d isc re tio n . Tuc k er, 53 8 F
. 3d at 735. Ind ec id in g t h at th e A E D P A lim ita tio n s p er iod sh ou ld be e qui tabl y t o l l ed, the di st r i ctc o ur t m us t det er m i ne th atthe pe ti ti o ne r ha s pur su ed hi s r i g ht s di li gen tlya nd extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces beyo nd hi s co ntro lst oo d in th e w ay of th e tim ely filin g of h is p e t i tio n . P ace, 54 4 U
. S. at41 8. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that S i m m s f ailed to ac t di l i g en tly i n pur su i nghi s fede r alr i g ht s, b ec au se he w ait ed n ea rly a ye ar from th e w ith d r a w a l o f h is previ ous s tat e co urt pet itio n to beg i n hi s fi nalat tem pts a ts t a t e c o u r tr e v i e w. The dis tr i ct court ’ s r eas oni ng i s s ound. Si m m s’ s l ast t wo c r a c k s a t hab e a s r e l i e f i n I l l i no i s we r e fr a ughtwithN o. 07

- 2999 15 diffi cul ti es

— the m i sfi l ed i n f or m a pauperi s p eti ti on co st hi m thr ee wee k s an d the mis fi l ed pet i ti o n fo r r ehe ar i ng cos t hi m ano th er thr ee. But, gi ven that he w ai ted al m ost a y earto fi l e the cl ai m , hi s later e rr or s were m agni fi ed b y h is in itia l d ela y. SeePa ce, 54 4 U .S. at 41 9 (“H a d p et iti oneradvanced hi s cl ai m s withi n a r eas onabl e t i m e o f th e i r a v a i l ab i l i t y, h e w o u l d n o tn o w b e f a c i n ga n y t i me pr o bl em. . . . ”)

. De spi te the f ac t th atS i m m s m is se d the d ead line by on e d ay, th ere w as no extra ord inary re as on req u irin g t h e g ra n t o f eq u ita b le t ollin g. S e e U nited States v . M arce ll o , 21 2 F
. 3d 1005 , 10 10 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( decl i ni ng to app l y e quit abl e t ol l i ng wh en peti ti oner m i ss ed a dea dl i ne b y o ne da y due t o the de ath o fthe attorn ey’s father seve ral w eeks be fore the d ead line ).

I V . Concl usio n A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ng . Ic o nc uri n the j ud gm ent.

2- 19- 10