Opinion ID: 2994915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Diligence and 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255

Text: para.6(4) The parties have ignored the limits of the district court’s certificate of appealability, and made substantial arguments on the due diligence issue./2 Further, this court remanded the case specifically for consideration of Montenegro’s due diligence--which was the apparent focus of the district court’s proceedings--and thus we will now address that issue. Prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), there was no statute of limitations for filing a sec. 2255 motion. Under the new law, a one-year limitation period applies. The period runs from the latest of four events: (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 para.6. Montenegro argues that his claim is not time-barred because the dates described in (3) and (4) are within the one-year limitations period. We shall first address his argument under (4) that he could not have discovered the facts supporting his claim prior to March 1997. Whether Montenegro could have discovered the facts earlier depends on how due diligence is defined. This court has been unable to find any appellate decisions setting forth the standard of review of a district court’s decision concerning due diligence in the context of sec. 2255. The government argues that the appropriate standard of review should be similar to the standard applied to Rule 33 cases: abuse of discretion. Rule 33 governs decisions on motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, in which courts apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33; United States v. Woolfolk, 197 F.3d 900, 904-05 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Austin, 103 F.3d 606, 608-11 (7th Cir. 1996). In support of using this analogy, the government notes the high degree of similarity between sec. 2255 and Rule 33, in that both have a limitation period, affect the liberty interests of the defendant and require a showing that the evidence could not have been discovered sooner through due diligence. But the analogy is incomplete. Rule 33 provides that the court, on motion of a defendant, may grant a new trial to that defendant if the interests of justice so require. The decision is therefore committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Woolfolk, 197 F.3d at 904. By contrast, sec. 2255 provides that the limitations period will run from the latest of four specified events. Nothing in the language implies discretion committed to the trial judge. Rather, it involves a finding of fact--whether due diligence was exercised--followed by a determination that the factual scenario satisfies the strict confines of the statute. Thus, clear error review is more appropriate. The better analogy for a due diligence finding on a sec. 2255 motion is to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which assigns to the trial judge the responsibility of determining not only the historical events that are relevant to how the case should be decided but also the legal significance of those events. See Mucha v. King, 792 F.2d 602, 605 (7th Cir. 1986). This means that legal characterizations, such as negligence, possession, ratification, principal place of business and the like are facts to which the clearly erroneous standard applies. See id. Due diligence is one such characterization, and we therefore review the district court’s decision on this issue for clear error. It is undisputed that, if Montenegro used due diligence to discover Kostich’s failure to file the appeal, he timely filed his sec. 2255 motion. This has nothing to do with discretion, or the abuse of it. Montenegro argues that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of due diligence in 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) should apply to an interpretation of due diligence in sec. 2255. See Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 1490 (2000). Williams, a sec. 2254 case, held that due diligence is considered in light of the information available at the time and that it does not depend on whether the prisoner’s efforts would have been successful at uncovering the underlying facts. See 120 S.Ct. at 1490. The analogy to sec. 2254 is probably appropriate, even though the relevant sec. 2254 provision applies to a determination whether an applicant is excused from a failure to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(e)(2). But we need not decide that here, because even under Williams--which hints that a prisoner’s special circumstances may have an impact on the due diligence inquiry--the district court’s due diligence finding would stand. As we conclude below, Montenegro failed to meet even the most lenient standard of diligence. In Wims v. United States the Second Circuit addressed a case similar to Montenegro’s, and concluded that [t]he proper task in a case such as this one is to determine when a duly diligent person in petitioner’s circumstances would have discovered that no appeal had been filed. 225 F.3d 186, 190 (2d Cir. 2000). Thus, the court held, an evaluation of whether due diligence was exercised must take into account the conditions of confinement and the reality of the prison system. See id. at 191 (citing Easterwood v. Champion, 213 F.3d 1321 (10th Cir. 2000)). We agree with the Second Circuit; a due diligence analysis under sec. 2255 para.6(4) requires consideration of a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Thus, we reject the reliance by both the district court and the government on Davenport v. A.C. Davenport & Sons Co., 903 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1990). First, Davenport addressed the issue whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, which is a wholly different inquiry from whether the defendant in a habeas proceeding fits within the sec. 2255 para.6(4) exception to the one-year statute of limitations. We discuss the issue of equitable tolling in Section IV of this opinion. For now, it is sufficient to say that Davenport, a securities fraud case in which the defendant sought equitable tolling, does nothing to assist our evaluation of a habeas petitioner’s diligence under sec. 2255 para.6(4). Montenegro next argues that his lack of sophistication should support a finding that he exercised due diligence. This argument places Davenport (cited by the government) at odds with two state court cases (cited by Montenegro)--and we hardly need to address a conflict between a distinguishable case and a non- precedential case. Neither is relevant here. The government argues that, under Davenport, Montenegro’s lack of sophistication is irrelevant to the due diligence inquiry. Montenegro argues that Davenport is distinguishable because it is a securities case and because the plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the relevant securities transaction. He is correct. Due diligence in the securities regulation context is a far cry from due diligence in a criminal procedure context. We need not reach the lack of sophistication issue, however, because--even taking Montenegro’s lack of sophistication into account--we find that he did not exercise due diligence. We need say only that it is possible, under some circumstances, that lack of sophistication could become part of a due diligence analysis, because the limitations with which a prisoner is faced might influence how quickly facts could have been discovered. See Wims, 225 F.3d at 190-91. But the facts of the case before us indicate that the district court could reasonably have concluded that Montenegro did not exercise due diligence, regardless of the standard of review or the level of deference due to the district court. That an appeal had not been filed was a matter of public record, which reasonable diligence could have unearthed. Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2000). About six months after his conviction and sentence were final, Montenegro had the docket sheet that revealed that an appeal in his case had not been filed, and he never asked Kostich about the appeal. On the basis of these facts, the district court did find that, even with the language barrier and other difficulties faced by Montenegro, due diligence would have revealed that an appeal had not been filed. We agree.