Opinion ID: 785958
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When did direct review of Allen's assault conviction conclude?

Text: 15 The timeliness of Allen's petition turns on when the judgment in her state case became final, thereby starting AEDPA's one-year limitations period. According to the district court, the triggering event occurred when the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Allen's manslaughter conviction and sentence on September 23, 1997. The district court reasoned that Allen's conviction became final 56 days later, on November 18, 1997, when her time to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court expired. See Michigan Court Rule 7.302(C)(2). 16 Although Allen's brief is not clear on this point, she appears to argue that her conviction was actually final much earlier, on October 14, 1994, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied her application for leave to cross-appeal the Court of Appeals's decision affirming her assault conviction. She argues for this earlier date in the apparent belief that it bolsters her contention that equitable tolling should be applied. See Part II.C.1. below. Because Allen's conviction, under this theory, would have been final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, Allen's time to file her habeas petition would have expired on April 24, 1997. See Austin v. Mitchell, 200 F.3d 391, 393 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of AEDPA had a one-year grace period after AEDPA's effective date to file their federal habeas petitions). Allen, however, did not file her habeas petition until October 22, 2001, approximately four years and six months later. 17 We do not have to decide, however, whether the district court was correct in concluding that Allen's conviction did not become final until November 18, 1997. Even giving Allen the benefit of that later date, her petition was still untimely. 18 If Allen's conviction became final on November 18, 1997, then AEDPA's statute of limitations would have begun running the next day, November 19, 1997. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 (In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.). The statutory period would then have been tolled from the date that Allen filed her motion for relief from judgment, September 28, 1998. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). At that time, 51 days would have remained of the one-year limitations period. 19 The state postconviction review process continued until October 30, 2000, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied Allen's motion for reconsideration. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002) (concluding that an application for state postconviction relief is pending, and the federal statute of limitations is therefore tolled, as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is `in continuance'). After Allen's motion was denied, the statute of limitations would have continued to be tolled during the 90 days in which Allen could have sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. See Abela v. Martin, 348 F.3d 164, 172-73 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc). That 90-day period would have expired on January 28, 2001, causing the federal statute of limitations to resume running the next day, on January 29, 2001. With 51 days remaining in the statutory period, Allen would have had until March 20, 2001 to file her habeas petition in the district court. But Allen did not file her habeas petition until October 22, 2001, approximately seven months later. 20 Thus, whether the direct-review process concluded when the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Allen's assault conviction, or when that court subsequently affirmed her manslaughter conviction, the result is the same: Allen's petition was untimely. We therefore will assume without deciding that the district court's analysis was correct, and that Allen's conviction became final on November 18, 1997. 21 2. Does a state postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel restart the one-year limitations period? 22 In an attempt to demonstrate that her petition was in fact timely, Allen argues that a state postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel should be considered part of the state's direct-review process. Under this theory, Allen's habeas petition would have been timely because the state courts did not finally dispose of her postconviction motion, which claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, until October 30, 2000, less than one year before Allen filed her habeas petition in federal court. Allen relies on this court's decision in Payton v. Brigano, 256 F.3d 405 (6th Cir.2001), in which this court observed in a footnote that, under Ohio law, a state postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is considered part of the state's direct-review process. Id. at 409 n. 4. 23 The argument she raises, however, was rejected in McClendon v. Sherman, 329 F.3d 490 (6th Cir.2003), where the petitioner was a Michigan state prisoner, as is Allen. In McClendon, this court stated: We reject McClendon's contention that whenever a prisoner raises an allegation in his state post-conviction proceedings that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, his conviction does not become final until those state post-conviction proceedings have ended. Id. at 493. The McClendon court emphasized that, even in the unique context of Ohio law, upon the filing of an ineffective assistance claim in state court, the statute of limitations is not restarted, but merely tolled. Id. at 494. 24 McClendon clearly holds that a state petition for postconviction review claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel tolls, but does not restart, AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. Allen therefore filed her habeas petition seven months late, unless she is entitled to the equitable tolling of AEDPA's statutory period. 25 C. Is Allen entitled to the equitable tolling of AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations? 26 Because AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, a petitioner who misses the deadline may still maintain a viable habeas action if the court decides that equitable tolling is appropriate. Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1007 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1057, 122 S.Ct. 649, 151 L.Ed.2d 566 (2001). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that he [or she] is entitled to equitable tolling. McClendon, 329 F.3d at 494. In a case like the present one, where the facts are undisputed and the district court decides as a matter of law that equitable tolling does not apply, this court reviews the district court's decision de novo. Dunlap, 250 F.3d at 1007-08 n. 2. 27 A court must consider the following factors in deciding whether equitable tolling should apply: 28 (1) the petitioner's lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the petitioner's lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one's rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the respondent; and (5) the petitioner's reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his claim. 29 Id. at 1008. This list of factors is not necessarily comprehensive, and not all factors are relevant in all cases. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir.2003). This court has also emphasized that [a]bsence of prejudice is a factor to be considered only after a factor that might justify tolling is identified. Id. 30 1. Allen's lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the filing requirement 31 Allen first contends that she is entitled to equitable tolling because she lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the filing requirement. This court considered a similar situation in McClendon, where the petitioner's conviction became final in August of 1995, before the enactment of AEDPA on April 24, 1996. 329 F.3d at 493. But McClendon did not file his habeas petition until November of 2000, eleven months after this court's decision in Austin v. Mitchell, 200 F.3d 391 (6th Cir.1999). McClendon, 329 F.3d at 492. The Austin court held that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of AEDPA had until April 24, 1997 to file their habeas petitions. This court in McClendon concluded that the decision in Austin informed McClendon that the time for filing his habeas petition had lapsed, and that McClendon had shown a lack of diligence by waiting eleven months after Austin was decided before filing his habeas petition. Id. at 495. McClendon, in other words, had constructive knowledge of the filing requirement through a published opinion of this court. 32 As discussed above, Allen's conviction became final either prior to the enactment of AEDPA or, as the district court concluded, on November 18, 1997, more than a year after AEDPA's effective date. Allen had notice of AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations either way. If her conviction became final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, then she was on notice of the limitations period when this court decided Austin. But Allen contends that Austin provided insufficient notice because it was not decided until 1999 and therefore did absolutely nothing for inmates such as Petitioner, because they could do nothing retroactively to file or toll the running of the statute. To the contrary, a reasonably diligent effort to file within a reasonably quick time [after Austin was decided] might have entitled [Allen] to equitable tolling[,] despite the fact that the statutory period would already have lapsed. McClendon, 329 F.3d at 495. 33 Even assuming that Allen's conviction did not become final until November 18, 1997, as held by the district court, she still had notice of the limitations period. The AEDPA statute plainly states that the one-year statute of limitations runs from the conclusion of direct review and that the statutory period is tolled during the time when a motion for state postconviction review is pending. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1)-(2). These statutory provisions clearly explained to Allen how AEDPA's statute of limitations would apply to her case. Notice by means of a statute, moreover, is certainly as adequate as notice through a published court opinion. 34 Allen, however, contends that confusion existed about the application of AEDPA's statutory period. According to Allen, 35 [i]n light of the fact that the court's [sic] were having difficulty in interpreting and applying the statute of limitations for inmates whose convictions occurred before the enactment of AEDPA, it can hardly be said that inmates themselves should have known how the statute would operate. 36 But the district court explained the flaw in Allen's argument as follows: 37 The law was somewhat unsettled as [to] petitioners whose convictions became final before the effective date of AEDPA. This Court is not aware, however, of the law being unsettled regarding when the one year statute of limitations would begin running for petitioners such as Allen, whose convictions became final after the effective date of AEDPA. 38 Because of this court's decision in Austin and AEDPA's clear provisions regarding the statute of limitations, Allen cannot claim a lack of constructive knowledge regarding the filing deadline. Even if Allen lacked actual knowledge of the relevant provisions of AEDPA, this court has repeatedly held that ignorance of the law alone is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling. Rose v. Dole, 945 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir.1991). We therefore conclude that Allen's purported lack of actual or constructive knowledge does not make equitable tolling appropriate. 39