2008 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 Third C ir c uit 11-10-2008 

# Alle n v . V aughn P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1157

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2008 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " Alle n v . V au ghn" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 248. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/248NOT 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 

### No. 06- 1157 RO DNE Y AL L E N, A ppel l ant

v. DO NA LD T. VA UG HN , SUPERI NTEN DEN T; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; THE A TTOR NEY GEN ERA L OF THE STATE

O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 01494) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es A r gued: Sept ember22, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: N ovember10, 2008) M aryG i bbons , E s q. ( A r gued) 600 M ul e R oad T om s R i ver , N J 08757- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant2

A nne Pal m er , E s q. ( A r gued) T hom as W . D ol genos , E s q. T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107- 3499 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge O n Ju ly1 2 , 1 9 9 5 , R o d n e yA llen p led g u iltyb u t m e n tallyill in P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate c o u rt to m u lti p le c o u n ts o f ro b b e ry , b u rg lar y , v io latio n s o f th e U n if o rm F ire a rm s A c t, cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , and unl aw ful r es tr ai nt , among ot hercr i m es . A s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entof thi r tyt o s eventyy ear s w as i m pos ed on Sept ember18, 1995, and A l l en h a s b e e n lit ig a tin g th is m a tter in sta te a n d f e d e ra l co u rt e v e r sin c e . T h e p a rties a re f u lly fami l i arw i th the l engthyand compl i cat ed pr ocedur al backgr ound of thi s l i t i gat i on, and gi ven thatw e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr epr i s e thatbackgr ound exce ptas re le v a n t to th e is s u e — o r i s s u e s — w e a re c a lle d u p o n to d e c id e . A s r el evanther e, and i n br oad s um m ary , on M ar ch 28, 2001, A l l en fi l ed an appar ent l yt i m e- barr ed pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt . B yo rde rs da ted J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 an d Jan u ary2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt ( N ew comer , J . ) , r ej ect i ng the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons , concl uded thatA l l en w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng and thathi s pr ocedur al defa ul ts houl d be exc us ed. T he3

m a tte r w a s re m a n d e d to th e M a g is tr a te J u d g e to c o n s id e r t h e m e ri ts o f th e p e titio n . O n A pr i l 27, 2004, the M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on ( “R & R ”) r ecomm endi ng thatthe pet i t i on be di s m i s s ed w i thoutan evi dent i aryhear i ng a f ter d e ter m in in g th a t A llen ’s p lea o f g u iltyw a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar ya n d th a t h is c laim of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance w as w i thoutm er i t . B yor derdat ed M ay12, 2004 and fi l ed J une 14, 2004, ( her ei naft er , w e w i l l r efe rt o the J une 14, 2004 dat e) , the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed th e R&R a n d d e c l i n e d t o i s s u e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty . As wi l l , h o p e f u l l y , b e c o me c le a r, t h is is a c ri tic a l o rd e r f o r o u r p u rp o s e s , a n d c e rt a in ly a c ri tic a l o rd e r f o r A lle n . A l l en di d nott i m el yappea l the or derof J une 14, 2004; i ndeed, he di d notappea l at a ll u n til m u c h late r. R a th e r, o n Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , h e f iled a p ro se a p p lica tio n f o r a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i ty , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed on Sept ember9, 2004. O n Sept ember 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , A lle n f

ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e S e p te m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r. O n F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , w e d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l f o r la c k o f

ju risd ictio n d u e to A l l en’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l w i thi n thi r tyday s aft erentryof the J une 14, 2004 o rd e r a n d th e u n tim e ly f ilin g o f h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r a c e rt if

ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. W e as s um ed ar guendo thatthatappl i cat i on evi dence d an i nt entt o appea l . A l l en s ought r ehea r i ng and, on M ay27, 2005, w e gr ant ed thatr eques tbeca us e w e had ove r l ooked the po ssi bil i tythat hi s appli cat i on for a cert i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i tycou l d b e con strued as a m ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o appea l the J une 14, 2004 or derunderR ul e 4( a) ( 5) of th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re . W e re m a n d e d f o r th e D istric t C o u rt toW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 1 4 d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e tim e to a p p e a l s h o u ld b e e x te n d e d u n d e r R u le 4 (a )( 5 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed the part i es t o br i ef the i s s ue of w hether , i f the a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra c e r t i f

i c a t e a p p e a l a b i l i tywe r e tr e a t e d a s a mo t i o n f o ra n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o appea l , the mot i on s houl d be gr ant ed. B yor derdat ed D ece m ber15, 2005, the D i s tr i ct C our t( G i l es , C . J . ) det erm i ned thatA l l en’ s appl i cat i on coul d notbe cons trued as a mot i on t o ext end the t i m e forfi l i ng an appe al . A l l en uns ucce s s ful l ym oved forr econs i der at i on and, on J anuary9, 2006, a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l fr om thatdeni al w as fi l ed. C ons trui ng 1 h is n o tice o f

a p p e a l as a re q u e st f

o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty , w e g ra n ted a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i tyas t o fouri s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by deny i ng A l l en’ s m ot i on underR ul e 4( a) ( 5) ; ( 2) w hetherA l l en’ s s how i ng of m ent al im p a ir m e n t w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h e q u ita b le to llin g w ith re s p e c t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 44 (d) (1) ; (3) w hetherA l l en’s m ental i m pairm ent w as suffi ci ent t o est abli sh the cau se and pr ej udi ce ne ces s aryt o excus e hi s pr ocedur al defa ul t ; and ( 4) w hetherthe D i s tr i ct C our terr ed i n deny i ng A l l en’ s § 2254 pet i t i on w i th r es pectt o w hethertr i al couns el w as in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to in v e stig a te A llen ’s h isto ryo f m e n tal illn e ss a n d a d v isin g h im to p lea d g u iltyb u t m e n tallyill . II. T h e in iti a l — a n d , p e rh a p s, o n ly— iss u e b e f o re u s c a n b e sim p lysta ted , an d it i s thi s : di d the D i s tr i ctC our tabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen, on D ece m ber15, 2005, i tdeni ed5

A l l en’ s m ot i on underR ul e 4( a) ( 5) ? If i tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on, w e w i l l aff i r m and w i l l notcons i derthe thr ee r emai ni ng i s s ues w hi ch, gi ven ouraff i r m ance of the or derof D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew . If it d id a b u se its d isc re tio n , w e w ill p re ss o n . B e c a u se w e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n , w e w ill a f f ir m . W e not e, pr el i m i nar i l y , thatA l l en has notbr i efe d thi s i m por t anti ni t i al i s s ue, the issue o n w h ich th e o ther issu es d ep en d , n o r ha s h e e v en su g g ested that the D istri ct C o u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng thathi s J ul y25, 2004 appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility d id n o t e x te n d th e tim e f o r f ilin g a n a p p e a l o f

its J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r. R ather , A l l en has el ect ed t o go a di ffe r entr out e, r ai s i ng i n hi s br i ef on appeal an ar gum entneverbefor e r ai s ed, even though the i s s ue of t i m el i nes s has been i n cont ent i on b e tw e e n th e D istric t C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt sin c e F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 . A llen ’s n e w a rg u m e n t is thi s : the J une 14, 2004 or dervi ol at ed the “s epar at e document ” r equi r ementof F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d , th e r e f o r e , u n d e rF e d . R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) , th e th i r ty - d a yt i me p e r i o d f o rf i l i n g a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 2 1 0 7 ( c ) d i d n o tru n u n t i l 1 5 0 d a ys fr om the entryof the J une 14, 2004 or deron the ci vi l docket , and s o the not i ce of appea l f ile d o n S e p te m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 w a s tim e ly. N ots urpr i s i ngl y , appel l ees ar gue w ai verand, i n l i ghtof the above , have good reas on t o d o so. A nd , w e no t e, no n-com pli ance w i th R ule 58 m aybe w ai ved becau se v io la tio n s o f

R u le 5 8 a re n o n -j u ri s d ic tio n a l. H e n g le in v . C o lt I n d u s . O p e ra tin g C o rp .,6

2 6 0 F .3 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 n .5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B utw ai veras i de, w e fi nd thatthe thr ee- page J une 14, 2004 or der , w hi ch “subst anti al l yom i t [t ed] the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s reas on s for di sposi ng of the part i es’ cl ai m s” and di d notcont ai n “an e xt ended pr es ent at i on of fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , ” s at i s fi ed the s epar at e- documentr equi r ement . I n r e C endantC orp. Sec. L i t i g. , 454 F. 3d 235, 241, 243 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . M or eover , i ti s i m por t antt o r eca l l w hatthe Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned: the “s ol e purpos e of the s epar at e- documentr equi r ement. . . w as t o cl ar i fy w hen the t i m e forappea l . . . begi ns t o run. ” B anker s T rus tC o. v. M al l i s , 435 U . S. 381, 384 ( 1978) . N othi ng coul d be cl ear erher e, forthe veryfi r s tpar agr aph of the J une 14, 20 04 order provi des: A N D N O W , thi s 13 dayof M ay , 2004, upon cons i der at i on of the th P eti ti o n er’s A m en d ed P eti ti o n fo r W ri t of H ab ea s C o rpu s (D o c. 46 ), R es pondent ’ s R es pons e, M agi s tr at e J udge M . Fai th A ngel l ’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on ( D oc. 58) , and the Pet i t i oner ’ s O bj ect i ons , i ti s her eby O R D E R E D thatM agi s tr at e J udge M . Fai th A ngel l ’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on i s A PPR O V E D and A D O PT E D . Pet i t i oner ’ s Pet i t i on for W rit o f H a b e a s C o rp u s is D E N IE D . N o C e rtific a te o f A p p e a lab ili tysh a ll is s u e . A . 19. M or eover , nothi ng thatfol l ow s cal l s anyof the above i nt o ques t i on, w i th the or der c o n c lu d in g “ P e titio n e r’ s P e titio n f o r W ri t o f

H a b e a s C o rp u s is d e n ie d .” Id . a t 2 1 -2 2 . A n d so w e re tu rn to w h e re w e b e g a n — w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthe J ul y25, 2004 appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of ap p ea labili tyd id n o t exten d the tim e w ith in w h ich to ap p ea l th e o rde r of Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 . It d id n o t.A p p e llee s n o te, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t A llen ’s a ss e rtio n o f c o u n se l’s f

a ilu re to 2 not i fyhi m of the J une 14, 2004 or deri s s us pectbeca us e the appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a lab ili tyw a s d a ted Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , y e t A llen a rg u e d th a t co u n se l d id n o t n o tifyh im 7 R ul e 4( a) ( 5) ( A ) s t at es , “[t ] he di s tr i ctcourtm ayext end the t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of a p p e a l if: (i) a p a rtyso m o v e s n o late r th a n 3 0 d a y s a f ter th e tim e p re sc rib e d b yth is R u le 4 ( a ) e x p i r e s ; a n d ( i i ) r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e th e ri t s m o t i o n i s f i l e d b e f o r e o rd u r i n g th e 3 0 d a ys aft erthe t i m e pr es cr i bed bythi s R ul e 4( a) expi r es , thatpartys how s excus abl e negl ector good caus e. ” A s not ed above , w e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o ext end the tim e f

o r ap p ea l fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . R am seu r v. B ey er, 92 1 F . 2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d , firs t, th a t th e a p p lica tio n f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty c o u ld n o t b e c o n stru e d a s a m o tio n f o r a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e to a p p e a l b e c a u se n o w h e re in th e a p p lica tio n d id A llen e v e n m e n tio n th e tim e lin e ss iss u e . A s th e D istric t C o u rt p u t it , “[t ] he appl i cat i on i s exac t l yw hati t s capt i on s ugges t s , a r eques tthatthe courtr econs i der i t s deci s i on thatthe pet i t i onerfai l ed t o m ake a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t s o a s to w a rr a n t th e is s u a n c e o f a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility.” A .2 5 . M o re o v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n tin u e d , if A llen ’s r e c e n t as se rtio n th a t h e w a s u n a b le to fi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l due t o hi s couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o not i fyhi m of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r d e n y in g re lief w e re tru e , A llen d id n o t m e n tio n th a t f a c t in hi s or i gi nal s ubm i s s i ons and, al though pr o s e, w as fami l i arw i th courtpr ocedur es for r eques t i ng ext ens i ons of t i m e. 2u n til J u ly 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 . 8

T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatA l l en had notdemonstr at ed the good ca us e or e x c u s a b le n e g le c t n e c e s s a ry to p e rs u a d e it to e x te n d h is tim e f o r f ilin g a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in s o c o n c lu d in g . III . T h e O rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rtw ill b e a f f ir m e d .9

A M B R O , C ir cu itJu d g e, dissen ti n g in p art an d co n cu rri n g in p art

M ycol l eague s and I agr ee thatM r . A l l en i s unabl e t o pr es enthi s i neff ect i veas s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m . H ow w e r eac h thatconcl us i on di ffe r s . M ycol l eague s bel i eve thatA l l en’ s appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i tyw as unt i m el y . I bel i eve thati tw as t i m el y , butI concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n al l ow i ng A l l en t o pr es ent his ha bea s c l a i m. R egar di ng the t i m el i nes s of A l l en’ s appea l , I agr ee w i th m ycol l eague s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng thatA l l en’ s J ul y25, 2004 ap p li ca ti o n fo r a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili tyd id n o t exten d h is t im e to a p p ea l th e C o u rt ’s J une 14, 2004 or der . I di s agr ee, how ever , w i th thei rvi ew thatA l l en’ s appea l w as not m a d e tim e lyb yo p e ra tio n o f th e se p a ra te d o c u m e n t re q u ire m e n t o f F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 8 (a ). Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) r equi r es thatan appe al of a di s tr i ct c o u rt ju d g m e n t o r o rd e r b e f iled “ w ith in 3 0 d a y s a f

ter th e ju d g m e n t o r o rd e r . . . is ent er ed. ” Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i i ) ext ends thi s fi l i ng per i od by 1 5 0 d a ys i f

a d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s r e q u i r e d u n d e rF e d . R . C i v . P . 5 8 ( a ) t o f i l e i t s j u d g m e n tb y a documents epar at e fr om i t s rul i ng and fa i l s t o do s o. T he rul i ng i n thi s cas e w as cont ai ned i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J une 14, 2004 or der . N o exce pt i on di s pens i ng w i th the10

s epar at e documentr equi r ementexi s t s her e, and thus w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe J une 1 4 o rd e r q u a lifie s a s a se p a ra te d o c u m e n t. T o so q u a lifyu n d e r F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 8 (a ), an o rd e r m u st, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, “ o m it (oratl eastsubst anti al l yom i t ) the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s reas on s for di sposi ng of the part i es’ c laim s.” In re C e n d a n t C o rp . S e c . L iti g ., 4 5 4 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). In C e n d a n t, w e det erm i ned thata s i x- page or der , fi ve page s of w hi ch w er e devot ed t o expoundi ng the b ac k g rou n d o f th e c ase , fa il ed to m ee t th is cri teri o n . Id. at 24 4 . H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s J une 14, 2004 or derw as fourpages , thr ee of w hi ch gave a fa ctual and pr ocedur al o v e rv ie w o f

th e c a s e . I s e e n o s ig n if ic a n t d is tin c tio n f

ro m o u r C e n d a n t d e c is io n . A c c o rd in g ly , I co n c lu d e th a t th e Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r d o e s n o t q u a lifya s a se p a ra te document , and thus A l l en’ s appea l i n J ul y2004 w as m ade t i m el ybyoper at i on of F e d .R .A p p .P . 4 (a )( 7 )( A )( ii) . I n appl y i ng the s epar at e documentrul e, I cont es tm ycol l eague s ’ as s ert i on that A llen w a iv e d its b e n e f

its b yf a ili n g to c laim a v io latio n p rio r to h is c u rre n t ap p e a l. Itis true that “a l i t i gan tcan w ai ve the app l i cat i on of the separat e do cum ent rule i n the sense thats he mayfi l e a va l i d appea l w i thoutw ai t i ng forthe l aps e of 150 da y s fr om the docket i ng of a f

aul tyj udgm ent . ” LeB oon v. L anca s t erJ ew i s h C m ty . C tr . , 503 F. 3d 217, 225 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . B utthe s epar at e documentrul e i s notw ai ved byi ndi vi dual s , l i ke A lle n , w h o o b v io u s ly w e re u n a w a re th a t th e yh a d a n a d d itio n a l 1 5 0 d a y s to f ile a n a p p e a l. See i d. I n fac t , ourC our thas ext ended the pr ot ect i ons of the s epar at e documentrul e eve n11

t o a l i t i gantw ho admi t t ed thathe under s t ood thatan or dernoti n s epar at e form w as a fi nal j udgm ent . See G r egs on & A s s oc. v. G ov’ tof the V i r gi n I s l ands , 675 F. 2d 589, 592 ( 3d C i r. 19 82 ). T he cases ci t ed b ym ycoll eagu es and the C om m on w eal th d o n ot di sturb t hese h o ld in g s m e re ly b e c a u s e th e ys ta te th a t th e s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t ru le is n o t ju ri s d ic tio n a l. See, e. g. , H engl ei n v. C ol tI ndus . O per at i ng C orp. , 260 F. 3d 201, 209 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (n o tin g th a t p a rties m a yo p t n o t to ra ise n o n -c o m p lian c e w ith th e se p a ra te d o c u m e n t ru le beca us e i t s vi ol at i on i s notj ur i s di ct i onal ) ; B anker s T rus tC o. v. M al l i s , 435 U . S. 381, 3 8 2 -8 4 (h o ld in g th a t a ju d g m e n t se t f o rth in a se p a ra te d o c u m e n t is n o t a p re re q u isite to a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n w h e re th e p a rt ie s a s s u m e d th a t th e re w a s a f in a l ju d g m e n t) . N o tw ith sta n d in g th a t I w o u ld h e a r th e a p p e a l f ro m th e Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r, I still w ou l d n ot r each the m eri t s of A l l en’s ha bea s c la im f o r i n e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. T hi s i s beca us e I w oul d r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the ha bea s fi l i ng deadl i ne and i t s excus i ng of A l l en’ s pr ocedur al defa ul tdue t o m ent al i m pai r m ent . A l l en f a iled to sh o w th e “ re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e ” o r “ c a u se a n d p re ju d ice ” n e c e ss a ryto p e rm it h is l at e and de faul t ed ha bea s pet i t i on t o pr ocee d. See LaC ava v. K y l er , 398 F. 3d 271, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; Sw egerv. C hes ney , 294 F. 3d 506, 511 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I bel i eve the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng otherw i s e. I n s um , w hi l e pr operappl i cat i on of the s epar at e documentrul e s houl d have p e rm itt e d A llen ’s a p p e a l o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r to o u r C o u rt, h e still does notgett o pr es enthi s i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m beca us e hi s l at e- fi l ed12

ha bea s pet i t i on i s nott ol l ed and hi s pr ocedur al defa ul ti s notexcus ed on the gr ound of m en tal im p airm en t. A ll en thu s lose s eith er b ythe m ajority ’s pa th o r bym ine. I th ere fo re re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t in p a rt a n d c o n c u r in p a rt.