Thompson v. Runnels

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss John William Thompson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s statute of limitations. The court rejects delayed accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D), equitable tolling based on alleged attorney misconduct, and the actual-innocence gateway exception. The document addresses the deference owed to state-court credibility findings and concludes that the recantation evidence does not establish actual innocence.

Holdings

1. Because Thompson's conviction became final before AEDPA's enactment, his federal habeas petition was presumptively due by April 24, 1997. His filing was therefore untimely because it was not delivered to prison authorities until October 27, 2002.
2. Section 2244(d)(1)(D) did not delay accrual because Thompson knew, or through due diligence could have discovered, the vital facts underlying his claims before 2006; obtaining witness declarations or other evidence supporting those facts did not establish a later factual-predicate date.
3. Thompson was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to show that he pursued his rights diligently or that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
4. Thompson did not satisfy the actual-innocence gateway because, considering all the old and new evidence, it was not more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Thompson's federal habeas petition was untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) delayed accrual of the limitations period until Thompson obtained witness recantations and other evidentiary support.
3. Whether Thompson was entitled to equitable tolling based on the alleged failure of retained counsel to file a federal habeas petition.
4. Whether the actual-innocence gateway recognized in Schlup v. Delo and applied to untimely petitions in McQuiggin v. Perkins allowed the court to reach the merits despite the untimely filing.