Charles v. Capra

Background

Alan Charles, the petitioner, sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), a provision allowing a court to provide relief from a final judgment for extraordinary circumstances. The judgment at issue dismissed Charles’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely under the federal limitations period in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The court had adopted Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison’s recommendation, granted Michael Capra’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later denied Charles’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

Arguments and analysis

Charles again argued that the filing deadline should have been equitably tolled, meaning extended because circumstances supposedly prevented timely filing. He relied on a January 22, 2018, letter asking the court to put his case on hold and on a handwritten facility log showing that he received a copy of the letter after it was stamped as received by the court.

The court held that the log did not change the earlier analysis because the magistrate judge had already accepted Charles’s account that he sent the letter and received a stamped copy. Charles still had not shown that the court’s lack of a substantive response reasonably led him to believe that he had received an open-ended extension. The court also relied on the finding that Charles had not pursued his rights with reasonable diligence during the more than three-year period for which he sought tolling.

Charles’s new argument concerned a March 2020 executive order by then-Governor Cuomo that temporarily extended certain time limits under New York law during the COVID-19 health crisis. The court explained that the relevant deadline was established by federal law, not New York law. It further stated that the AEDPA limitations period had expired nearly two years before the executive order, so there was no remaining period to extend even if the order had applied.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Charles’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The court concluded that Charles had not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the dismissal of his petition. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Charles had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The order stated that a copy would be mailed to Charles at the address on the docket.