Phonsavanh Phongmanivan v. Ron Haynes

Phonsavanh Phongmanivan v. Ron Haynes, 918 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 19, 2019 · No. No. 16-36018

Summary

The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court regarding the definition of "pending" for statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) in habeas corpus proceedings. The issue is whether a personal restraint petition (PRP) is final for AEDPA purposes when the Washington Supreme Court denies a motion to modify a commissioner's order denying discretionary review, or only when the Washington Court of Appeals clerk issues a certificate of finality under Rule 16.15(e)(1)(c). The case highlights the interplay between state procedural rules on finality and federal habeas statute of limitations.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Sandra S. Ikuta; Morgan Christen; Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 19, 2019
Docket number
No. 16-36018
Procedural posture
Appeal from denial of habeas corpus petition; certification of question to state supreme court
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Phonsavanh Phongmanivan v. Ron Haynes
Disposition
other

Topics

habeas corpusappellate procedurestatute of limitationsstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

Habeas CorpusStatutory TollingAEDPAState Law Finality

Questions Presented

  1. At what point does a personal restraint petition proceeding become final under Washington law for purposes of AEDPA statutory tolling: when the Washington Supreme Court denies a motion to modify an order of its Commissioner denying discretionary review, or when the Clerk of the Washington Court of Appeals issues a certificate of finality as required by Rule 16.15(e)(1)(c) of the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure?

Key quotations

We respectfully ask the Washington Supreme Court to answer the certified question presented below, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") § 2.60.020, because we have concluded that a dispositive question of state law applies to the claim, and therefore "it is necessary to ascertain the local law of [Washington] state in order to dispose of [this] proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined." (1021)
Is the denial of a personal restraint petition final when the Washington Supreme Court denies a motion to modify an order of its Commissioner denying discretionary review of the state appellate court's denial, or is the denial not final until the Clerk of the Washington Court of Appeals issues a certificate of finality as required by Rule 16.15(e)(1)(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure? (1025)

Factual background

Phongmanivan was convicted of two counts of assault in Washington state court in 2011 and sentenced to 306 months. After direct review ended on December 11, 2013, he filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) in the Washington Court of Appeals on February 4, 2015. The Court of Appeals dismissed the PRP on May 4, 2015. He then sought discretionary review in the Washington Supreme Court, which was denied by the Commissioner and then by the full court on February 10, 2016. The certificate of finality was issued by the Clerk of the Washington Court of Appeals on April 1, 2016. Phongmanivan filed his federal habeas petition on April 9, 2016. The district court held that the limitations period resumed on February 10, 2016, making the petition untimely, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Phongmanivan's federal habeas petition as untimely. Phongmanivan appealed. The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court regarding the finality of a personal restraint petition under Washington law for purposes of AEDPA statutory tolling.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…