Ninth Circuit: Prisoner’s Delusions Warrant §2254 Equitable Tolling

On April 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations on an Oregon prisoner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be equitably tolled due to delusions the prisoner was experiencing.

State prisoners have one year from the conclusion of their direct appeal to file a federal writ of habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). That time limit is tolled during state post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings. § 2244(d)(2). If “extraordinary circumstances” prevent filing a timely petition, courts may also equitably toll the statute of limitations. See: Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010).

Steven Forbess was convicted of several offenses against his former wife, Joanne. His direct appeal ended, and his federal habeas limitation period began, on November 28, 2001. Forbess did not file a PCR or federal habeas corpus petition before the limitation period expired.

Sometime after July 14, 2003, an inmate legal assistant informed Forbess of the one year federal filing deadline - which had expired eight months earlier - and helped him filed a state PCR action on October 30, 2003. When that proceeding concluded, Forbess filed a federal habeas corpus petition on October 22, 2008.

The petition was approximately eleven months late. So the district court ordered Forbess to show cause why his untimely petition should not be summarily dismissed.

Forbess “believed he was working undercover for the FBI, and his trial was a ‘sham’ orchestrated to lure his ex-wife out of hiding and arrest her for being part of an extensive drug distribution operation,” the court found. In fact, Forbess believed that his wife and her family were part of a drug cartel that wanted him dead because he “had witnessed Joanne’s family receive a large shipment of drugs.”

Forbess “believed that the FBI asked him to stay in prison until Joanne and her family were arrested, at which time the FBI would secure his release.”

Forbess requested equitable tolling of the limitation period due to his mental illness. The district court found that psychological evaluations by three prison doctors and mental health records established that Forbess’s delusions persisted from the time of his trial beyond the expiration of the limitation period.

“As such, he was incapable of rationally understanding the necessity of filing a timely habeas petition,” the court found. Nevertheless, the court denied equitable tolling and dismissed the action, finding that Forbess did not prove that his mental illness was the “but-for” cause of his delay.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that “the district court applied an overly-rigid interpretation of the but-for test set out in” Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), “and did not consider the totality of the circumstances before it - especially the peculiar nature of Forbess’s mental illness.”

Noting that the second prong of the Bills test “does not require a literal impossibility,” the appellate court concluded “that Forbess has satisfied both Bills prongs” and is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitation period. See: Forbess v. Franke, 749 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2014).

Related legal cases