Charles v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-01669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Charles v. Capra, Judge Briccetti dismissed Alan Charles’s late petition after finding equitable tolling unavailable.
Alan Charles’s petition was dismissed as untimely; Michael Capra’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Charles v. Capra, Alan Charles filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 more than three years after the filing deadline had expired. A magistrate judge recommended granting Michael Capra’s motion to dismiss because the petition was untimely.
Charles objected, arguing that he had not received a response to a request to pause his case while he pursued state remedies and that limited law-library access prevented timely filing. The court found that these circumstances did not justify extending the deadline and that Charles had not shown reasonable diligence during the three-year period before he filed his petition.
The court overruled Charles’s objections, adopted the recommendation, and granted Capra’s motion to dismiss. The petition was dismissed, no certificate allowing an appeal was issued, and appeal-related fee-free status was denied. Judge Briccetti also directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Capra · No. 7:21-cv-01669
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Alan Charles, appearing without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michael Capra moved to dismiss the petition as barred by the filing deadline. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison recommended granting the motion, concluding that the one-year deadline under the federal habeas statute expired on January 29, 2018, while Charles did not file his petition until February 18, 2021.
Charles filed objections to the recommendation. He argued that the deadline should be extended because he did not receive a substantive response to a January 22, 2018, letter asking the court to pause his case while he pursued state-court remedies. He also argued that he lacked access to law-library computers and typewriters, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It explained that equitable tolling—an extension of a filing deadline in exceptional circumstances—requires a petitioner to show both extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing and reasonable diligence throughout the period for which an extension is sought.
The court held that Charles did not meet either requirement. He did not adequately show that the circumstances he identified prevented timely filing, and the record showed no action by him in state or federal court between January 2018 and February 2021. His evidence about unavailable computers and typewriters did not show that the law library remained inaccessible for the entire three-year period or that he lacked other ways to pursue his state remedies. The court also found that sending the January 22 letter did not excuse his failure to follow up or otherwise continue pursuing his rights.
The court further stated that pandemic-related restrictions beginning in 2020 could not explain failure to meet a deadline that expired in 2018. It therefore concluded that Charles was not entitled to equitable tolling.
Ruling
Judge Briccetti overruled Charles’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Capra’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Charles had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.