Causey v. Cain

• Decision Date: 24 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-30618.,04-30618.
• Citation: 450 F.3d 601
• Parties: Harlan CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

450 F.3d 601

Harlan CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-30618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 24, 2006.

Harlan Causey, Angola, LA, pro se.

Zata Walker Ard, New Orleans, LA, for Cain.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

This Court previously granted Petitioner Causey a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") to determine whether limitations should bar his application for habeas corpus. Specifically, the COA directs us to decide two questions: "whether the prison mailbox rule should be used to determine the date on which Causey filed his writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court and whether Causey is entitled to equitable tolling under the circumstances."¹ We now write solely to answer the first COA question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's dismissal and remand so that the district court may determine when Causey's application was delivered to prison authorities.²

I. BACKGROUND

A Louisiana jury convicted Causey of possessing cocaine and marijuana. Under the state's three-strikes law, Causey was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Causey timely appealed to Louisiana's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. On January 26, 2000, that intermediate appellate court affirmed Causey's convictions and sentences. See State v. Causey, 752 So.2d 287 (La.App. 4th Cir.2000).

Proceeding pro se, Causey then sought direct review in the Louisiana Supreme Court. Louisiana law required Causey to apply for a writ of certiorari within thirty days of the court of appeal's January 26th judgment. LA. SUP.CT. R.X. Within that thirty-day window, no later than February 25, 2000,³ Causey signed an application to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Causey also alleges that he placed the application in the prison mail system on or before February 25.⁴ However, the Louisiana Supreme Court did not receive it until March 21, 2000. Causey's application remained on the Louisiana Supreme Court's docket for about eleven months. On February 16, 2001, the court rejected Causey's certiorari application in a one-word order: "Denied." State v. Causey, 785 So.2d 837 (La.2001).

Next, Causey pursued state habeas corpus relief. His state habeas petition, filed on August 13, 2001, was denied at all three levels of the Louisiana courts. State v. Causey, No. 383-600 (Orleans Parish Crim. Dist. Ct. Dec. 14, 2001); State v. Causey, No. 2002-K-0081 (La.App. 4th Cir. Jan. 29, 2002); State ex rel. Causey v. State, 836 So.2d 127 (La.2003). The Louisiana Supreme Court again, in a one-word order, "Denied" review at the post-conviction stage, this time on February 14, 2003.

On March 6, 2003, Causey filed for federal habeas corpus relief. 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court held that Causey had filed his section 2254 petition past the one-year limitation period. It reasoned that Causey's conviction had become final in February of 2000 because his pro se application for direct review in the Louisiana Supreme Court had been late under Louisiana law. We granted a COA⁵ to decide, inter alia, "whether the prison mailbox rule should be used to determine the date on which Causey filed his writ application for direct review of the court of appeal's decision affirming his conviction." Causey v. Cain, No. 04-30618, at 2 (5th Cir. Nov.5, 2004) (interim order).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo an order dismissing a habeas petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). See Giesberg v. Cockrell, 288 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir.2002).

III. DISCUSSION

A. CAUSEY'S FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION IS TIMELY IF THE PRISON MAILBOX RULE DEEMS HIS WRIT FILED NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 25, 2000

Causey's federal habeas petition is timely if the prison mailbox rule sets the filing date for his application to the Louisiana Supreme Court no later than February 25, 2000. "AEDPA provides that a petitioner may file a habeas petition within one year of `the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.' 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) [2000]." Foreman v. Dretke, 383 F.3d 336, 338 (5th Cir.2004). "[T]he time during which a properly filed application is pending in state court is not counted toward the federal limitations period, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)... ." In re Wilson, 442 F.3d 872, 874 (5th Cir.2006).

The question presented here is when Causey's conviction became final. If Causey's state certiorari application was timely filed on the date he presumably placed it in the prison mail system, then AEDPA's limitations period began running only after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied direct review on February 18, 2001. In that case, Causey filed for federal habeas well within AEDPA's time restrictions since the statute of limitations was tolled during the year-and-a-half that Causey's state habeas petition was pending. However, if Causey's state certiorari application is deemed filed only when the Louisiana Supreme Court received it, then the time expired for direct review in February of 2000 and his conviction became final at that time. In that case, AEDPA's timebar forbids Causey's petition absent equitable tolling. Thus, we must decide whether the prison mailbox rule should be applied to determine the filing date of Causey's application for direct review in the Louisiana Supreme Court.

B. LOUISIANA LAW REQUIRES FEDERAL COURTS TO APPLY THE PRISON MAILBOX RULE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES

1. HOUSTON V. LACK AND THE PRISON MAILBOX RULE

In Houston v. Lack, the Supreme Court held that a pro se petitioner's notice of appeal is deemed "filed" at the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. 487 U.S. 266, 270-71, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245. Construing a federal rule of appellate procedure, the Court reasoned that pro se prisoners are at the mercy of prison authorities and cannot "personally travel to the courthouse" to ensure timely filing. Id. at 270-74, 108 S.Ct. 2379. Additionally, the Houston Court's rule minimizes disputes and uncertainty over when filing occurs: "Because reference to prison mail logs will generally be a straightforward inquiry, making filing turn on the date the pro se prisoner delivers the notice to prison authorities for mailing is a bright-line rule, not an uncertain one." Id. at 275, 108 S.Ct. 2379. In light of these concerns, the Court held that Houston timely appealed in his federal habeas case even though the clerk stamped "filed" on his appeal one day late: Houston delivered his appeal to prison authorities within the thirty-day deadline. Id. at 269, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The Supreme Court has since dubbed Houston's holding the "prison mailbox rule." Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 300 n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 1571, 1576 n. 2, 161 L.Ed.2d 542 (2005).

The Houston Court was interpreting federal procedural rules. Many state courts, however, have incorporated the prison mailbox rule as an incident of their state filing deadlines. See Massaline v. Williams, 274 Ga. 552, 554 S.E.2d 720, 721-22 (2001); Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 546 Pa. 115, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (1996); In re Jordan, 4 Cal.4th 116, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 840 P.2d 983, 993 (1992). Other courts have rejected Houston as a matter of state law. Grant v. Senkowski, 95 N.Y.2d 605, 721 N.Y.S.2d 597, 744 N.E.2d 132, 134 (2001); Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434, 436 (1999); State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279, 284 (1998).

2. COLEMAN V. JOHNSON DOES NOT CONTROL

This Court has refused to extend the prison mailbox rule to Texas state habeas filings. See Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.1999). On the other hand, the Louisiana Supreme Court has applied the prison mailbox rule with unfailing consistency as a matter of state law. See State ex rel. Hensley v. State, 876 So.2d 78 (La.2004); State ex rel. Egana v. State, 771 So.2d 638 (La.2000); State ex rel. Ward v. State, 741 So.2d 658 (La.1999); State ex rel. Gray v. State, 657 So.2d 1005 (La. 1995); State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley, 648 So.2d 909 (La.1995); see also State v. Froiland, 910 So.2d 956, 959 n. 4 (La.App. 5th Cir.2005); State v. Girod, 892 So.2d 646, 653 n. 4 (La.App. 5th Cir.2004); Davis v. Huey P. Long Regional Medical Center, 841 So.2d 7, 9-10 (La.App. 3d Cir.2003) (stating, "Louisiana has adopted the `mailbox rule' . . ., holding that a document is considered `filed' when it is delivered to prison officials"); Tatum v. Lynn, 637 So.2d 796 (La.App. 1st Cir.1994) ("We find the reasoning in Houston v. Lack, supra to be persuasive on this issue. . . . Thus we hold that Tatum's [state] petition for judicial review . . . was filed at the time it was delivered to the prison authorities for forwarding to the district court").

Coleman does not require that we ignore the abundance of Louisiana case law following the prison mailbox rule. Although its reasoning is less than clear, Coleman is best understood as an interpretation of Texas law. See 184 F.3d at 402 (emphasizing that the case involved "postconviction applications in state court") (emphasis in original); but see Torns v. Mississippi, 54 Fed.Appx. 592 (5th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (stating both that petitioner's state applications were not "`properly filed' under Mississippi law" and not subject to the mailbox rule under Coleman). "This circuit, like most, holds that a properly filed [state] application [for collateral review] is one submitted according to the state's procedural requirements." Lookingbill v. Cockrell, 293 F.3d 256, 260 (internal punctuation omitted).⁶ At the time this Court decided Coleman, Texas law was unclear on, and arguably averse to, the prison mailbox rule. See Kinnard v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 266, 269 (Tex....