NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0264n.06 F iled: April 9, 2007 No. 06-1662 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT JOHNAL EX AN DE R, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

v. THOMAS B I RKETT, Warden, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : CO L E, SUT TO N, and CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. John Alex ander appea ls the district c ourt’s dismissal of his petition fo r h a be a s c or pu s a s unti me ly . We a g re e that th e pe tit ion wa s unti me ly

and thu s a ff ir m.
I Michig an convic ted Alexander of second- deg ree murder and sentenc ed him to life with the po ssi bi li ty of parole on

Marc h 2 5, 19 81 . A t th a t ti me , M ic hig an p aro le po lic y wo uld pe rm it a prisoner sentence d to life i n prison with the pos sibili ty of parole t o be eligible for parole in as few as ten y ear s. But ac cordingto Alexander’s fe dera l petition, that parole policy stiffene d there afte r. I n 1992, resp onding to hig hly publicized violent crimes committed by parole es, Michig an
reor g anized its parole boar d in an ef fort to boost its poli tical acc ountability . The ne w boar d cra cked down on par ole for life sentenc es, adopting a philosophy that life in pr ison me ans life. In 1999, theNo. 06-1662

Al e x an de r v . B irk

e tt

-2- Michig an leg islature eliminated a require ment that the parole board interview prisoners sentenc ed to life eve ry

five y ear s. Also in 1999, the chair man of the parole board te stified that the new boa rd had a “ longsta

nding philosophy” that “a life sentenc e means just that—life i n prison.” In 2001, the spokesman for

the Michig an De partment of Corr ections (MDOC) publicly stated that “life means life.” A lso in 2001, MDOC distributed a document to the Michig an Judges Assoc iation expl aining that the “pa

role boa rd believe s a life se ntence means life in pr ison.”
Pertinent to the timeliness issue here is Alexander’s November 26, 2002, filing of his third motion for relief

from judg ment in state court, a rguing that 1) the par ole boar d’s life-means-life po lic y vio late s th e Ex Pos t F a c to C la us e a s a pp lie d to him , an d 2) he wa s dep ri ve d o f d ue pr oc e ss beca use the trial judg e sente nced him under a misconception that he would be pa rolable. Some four months later, on Marc h 13, 2003, J udg e Sapala, the trial judge who sentenc ed Alexander in 1981, h el d a h ea ri n g an d

gra n t edAl ex an d er ’s m o t i o n . T h e M i c h i gan C o urt o f A p p ea l s re v er s edJ u d ge Sapala shortly

there afte r, on J uly 15, 2003, and the Michig an Supreme Court denie d leave to appea l on Marc h 25, 2004. Alexander then soug ht f eder al revie w by filing his ha beas pe tition on October 8, 2004. The district cour t gr anted the w arde n’s motion for summary judgmen t , holding that Alexander’s pe tition was untim ely . Fol l o wi ng the denial of his moti on for r econside ration, Alexander a

ppeale d.
IINo. 06-1662

Al e x an de r v . B irk

e tt

-3- We r eview de novo both the g rant of and the denial of a motion to reco n s i d er s u m m ary judgme nt. Smith v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 167 F.3d 286, 289 ( 6th Cir. 1999).
Th e An tit e rr or ism

and Ef fe c tiv e De a th Pen a lty Ac t (AE DPA ) re qu ir e s a pri so ne r to f ile his federal ha beas pe tition on or before one y ear afte r “the date on whic h the fa ctual pre dicate of the claim or c laims presente d co u l d h av e b een disc overe d throug h the exercise of due dilige nce.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)( 1)(D)
. Fur thermore , the s tatute of limitations is tolled duringthe time “which a proper ly filed ap p l i ca tion for State post-conviction or othe r collate ral re view with re spect to the pertinent judgment or c laim is pending.” Id. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). F or bo th A le xan de r’ s E x Post F a c to Cla us e and Du e Pr oc e ss C la

us e c la ims , th e fa c tua l p redi cat e is t he a lle g e d c ha

ng e in t he pa ro le b o ar d ’ s p o l i c y.
To me a sure the pe tit ion ’s tim e lin e ss, we c ount ba c kw ard fr om the date Al e xan de r f ile d h is fede ral ha beas pe tition, October 8, 2004. And tolling pr eclude s char g ing him with the time during which his third state petition for re lief wa s pending , from Nove mber 26, 2002, to Mar ch 25, 2004. Wor kin g ba c kw ard

fr om O c tob e r 8 , if

Al e xan de r co uld have dis c ov e re d the fa c tua l pre dic a te fo r h is
c la im on or

be for e J une 11, 2002, it is time-barr ed. (We count 168 day s betwee n J une 11, 2002, and November 26, 2002; 197 day s betwee n Marc h 25, 2004, and October 8, 2004; and 197 + 168 = 365.) I f h e c ou ld n ot h ave dis c ov e re d th e fa c tua l pr e dic a te un til a fter J une 11, 2002, the statute of limit ations had not expired by October 8, 2004.No. 06-1662

Al e x an de r v . B irk

e tt

-4- Alexander insists that he could not have disc overe d the fact u al p re dicate f or his fede ral claims until he hear d J udg e Sapala say at hi s hear ing on Ma rch 13, 2003, “ it’s only

now that we se e what the Parole Boa

rd i s doing.” Be lying his stanc e, howe ver, is the plain f act that Ale x ander

set forth these same Ex Pos t Fac to Clause and Due Process Clause claims in his November 2002 motion in state court. And even if we assume Alexander did not actua lly know of his claims until he filed the m in No ve mbe r 20 02 , a s his c ouns e l state d a t or a l argume nt, a c tua l kn ow le dg e is no t t he t est under § 2244( d)(1) (D). Rather, unde r this section, a fe dera l habea s claim acc rues when a petitioner
c ou ld have dis c ov e re d it thr ou g h the e xer c ise of du e dil ig e nc e . 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 44 (d )( 1) (D ); se e als o Souter v. J

ones , 395 F.3d 577, 586- 87 (6th Cir. 2005).
The litany of fac ts g oing back to 1992 included in A lexander’s habea s petition convinces us that hi s p e tit ion wa s unti me ly
. Th e pe tit ion de ta ils the c ha ng e s in par ole po lic y fo rm ing the ba sis for his cla im: the 1992 reor g anization of t he parole board, the 1999 elimination of five- y ear revie w, the 1999 testimony

by the cha irman of the pa role boa rd, t h e 2001 statement by the MDOC spokesman, the 2001 of

ficial mate rials stating that life means life, a nd various statistics showing that life-e ligible pr isoners we re parole d much less fre quently in the 1990s than befor e. We need not peg with cer tainty the exact date on which Alexander’ s claims acc rued. But we can say , as evide nced by his own habea s petition, that Alex ander could have discovered, throug h the exercise of due diligenc e, the f

actua l p re d i ca t e for

his claims before J une 2002. His Oc tober 2004 pe tition was
u n t i m e l y.No. 06-1662

Al e x an de r v . B irk

e tt

-5- III
F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.