Parsons v. Lizarraga

Background

Aaron Atlee Parsons, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. In 2018, this court dismissed the petition as untimely, meaning it was filed after the federal deadline. The court denied a certificate of appealability and entered judgment in favor of the respondent. The dismissal stated that Parsons could move to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) after the California Supreme Court decided a related question, if that decision suggested that his petition was timely.

The Ninth Circuit later affirmed the finding that the petition was untimely. It concluded that Parsons was not entitled to statutory tolling—the suspension of the federal filing deadline while certain state proceedings are pending—because his state habeas petitions were not properly filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The Ninth Circuit calculated that the petition was untimely by 228 days.

Requests to Reopen

After the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the related matter, Parsons asked to reopen the case. He argued that the decision established that his petition was timely because it held that a delay of up to 120 days between a state court’s denial of a habeas petition and filing at the next level of review would not be considered a substantial delay. Parsons stated that his delay was 82 days.

The court denied the request. It explained that the Ninth Circuit’s decision rested on the conclusion that Parsons was not entitled to statutory tolling because his state habeas petitions were not properly filed. Therefore, the California Supreme Court’s later decision did not control the timeliness issue in Parsons’s case.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to reopen the case. The order also terminated Docket Nos. 79 and 80, and the case remained closed.