United States Court of Appeals
April 16, 2008
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. No. 06-2348
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. Nos. CIV-06-343 WJ/KMB & CR-02-1056 WJ)
Submitted on the briefs: *
Frank Gabaldon, Pro Se.
Larry GÃ³mez, United States Attorney, William J. Pflugrath, Assistant
United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Frank Gabaldon, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court's dismissal of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that it was
filed more than one year after his convictions became final. This court granted
Mr. Gabaldon a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), on the
timeliness issue. See United States v. Gabaldon, No. 06-2348 (10th Cir. Sept. 25,
2007) (unpublished). We conclude that, in light of Mr. Gabaldon's showing of
state interference with his filing, the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing the motion on the record before it. We therefore vacate the dismissal
and remand for further proceedings in the district court.
Mr. Gabaldon's convictions became final when the Supreme Court of the
United States denied certiorari on March 21, 2005. See Gabaldon v. United
States, 544 U.S. 923
(2005). Consequently, under § 2255's one-year time limit,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), his § 2255 motion was due on or before March 21, 2006.
On February 2, 2006, however, Mr. Gabaldon was placed in segregation and
prison officials confiscated all his legal materials. They did not release his papers
until April 4, 2006. He filed his § 2255 motion and an accompanying brief on
April 26, 2006, which was 36 days late.
The magistrate judge ordered Mr. Gabaldon to show cause why his motion
should not be dismissed as untimely. Mr. Gabaldon responded through an
[End Page 2]
attorney retained for the limited purpose of responding to the order to show cause.
According to the statement under penalty of perjury that Mr. Gabaldon submitted
to the district court:
I Frank Gabaldon Declare that on February 2, 2006 I was placed in
the Special Housing Unit, this being the third time, and was locked
down 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Furthermore, my property was
secured and placed in the Property Room. I put in many written
requests and made numerous verbal requests, requesting my legal
work containing my motion 2255, attached memorandum, caselaw,
transcripts, jury instructions, indictment, and relevant documents.
Despite these many requests, written and otherwise, my property
containing the aforementioned was not issued to me until April 4,
2006. For this reason my motion 2255 and attached memorandum
were filed late.
R. Doc. 13, Exh. E. He also presented (1) a statement under penalty of perjury by
his cellmate regarding his requests for the return of his documents and (2) copies
of written requests that he had submitted to prison staff seeking the return of his
documents. In addition, he submitted a copy of a memorandum from an employee
of the United States Penitentiary-Hazelton that stated:
Inmate Gabaldon . . . was placed in the Special Housing Unit for
violation of Bureau rules and regulations on February 02, 2006. I
understand that inmate Gabaldon had a deadline of March 21, 2006
for Motion 2255. On February 02, 2006 inmate Gabaldon's property
was secured and sent to the Special Housing Unit. Inmate Gabaldon
was not issued his property until April 04, 2006. His property
contained documents that were needed for his court deadline, Motion
2255; therefore resulting in inmate Gabaldon, Frank . . . to not meet
Id., Exh. G. Mr. Gabaldon further asserted in an unsworn submission that when
his legal materials were returned to him on April 4, he mailed copies to his
[End Page 3]
mother for typing 1 and she had the motion and the brief delivered to the court for
filing on April 26, 2006.
The magistrate judge found no ground for equitable tolling and
recommended that the § 2255 motion be dismissed as untimely. She stated that
Mr. Gabaldon had not been diligent in preparing his materials before his
placement in segregation and that the prison's confiscation of his legal papers was
not an extraordinary circumstance justifying his failure to file timely.
Mr. Gabaldon filed lengthy objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation
that detailed the actions he and his family had taken with regard to his claims
after the Supreme Court had denied review. The objections included another
sworn affidavit supporting Mr. Gabaldon's contentions. After reviewing Mr.
Gabaldon's objections, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's
recommendation and dismissed the § 2255 motion.
The issue before this court is whether Mr. Gabaldon is entitled to equitable
tolling of the statutory one-year limitations period for at least 36 days because
prison staff confiscated all his legal materials just six weeks before the expiration
Despite Mr. Gabaldon's allegations regarding typing, the § 2255 motion
filed on April 26 was handwritten on the court's standard § 2255 form. The
accompanying brief, however, appears to be printed from a computer
[End Page 4]
of the limitations period and held them until two weeks after that period expired. 2
We review the district court's decision on equitable tolling for an abuse of
discretion. Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133
, 1138 (10th Cir. 2003).
Equitable tolling of the limitations period is available "when an inmate
diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was
caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control." Marsh v. Soares,
223 F.3d 1217
, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000). We have stated:
Equitable tolling would be appropriate, for example, when a prisoner
is actually innocent, when an adversary's conduct "" or other
uncontrollable circumstances "" prevents a prisoner from timely
filing, or when a prisoner actively pursues judicial remedies but files
a defective pleading during the statutory period. . . . Moreover, a
petitioner must diligently pursue his federal habeas claims; a claim of
insufficient access to relevant law . . . is not enough to support
Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799
, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
From the facts in the record before this court, it appears that this may be a
case in which "an adversary's conduct . . . prevent[ed] a prisoner from timely
Mr. Gabaldon also argues that he is actually innocent of the crimes of
which he was convicted. Actual (factual) innocence is a ground for applying
equitable tolling. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799
, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). As the
district court recognized, however, Mr. Gabaldon's arguments implicate legal
innocence, not factual innocence.
[End Page 5]
filing." Id. 3 The evidence presented by Mr. Gabaldon indicates that six weeks
before the expiration of the limitations period, prison officials confiscated all of
his legal documents, including a draft § 2255 motion and brief, and refused to
return the documents despite his numerous requests before his deadline that they
do so. Mr. Gabaldon filed his § 2255 motion just 22 days after officials returned
his legal materials to him.
In Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129
, 133 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second
Circuit held that "the confiscation of a prisoner's legal papers by a corrections
officer shortly before the filing deadline may justify equitable tolling and permit
the filing of a petition after the statute of limitations ordinarily would have run."
That court found that
[t]he intentional confiscation of a prisoner's habeas corpus petition
and related legal papers by a corrections officer is "˜extraordinary' as
a matter of law. . . . And a person is plainly "˜prevented' from filing
a pleading for some period of time if he is deprived of the sole copy
of that pleading, something that the petitioner asserts happened to
Because the district court sua sponte determined that the § 2255 motion
could not proceed, the government never entered an appearance in the district
court. On appeal the government moves to supplement the record with certain
documents. The district court should in the first instance have an opportunity to
consider this additional evidence. "Consequently, we conclude the circumstances
in the present case do not lead us to believe the interests of justice would best be served by exercising our inherent equitable power to allow [the moving party] to supplement the record on appeal[.]" United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187
1193 (10th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the record on appeal is the record that was
before the district court.
[End Page 6]
Id. at 133-34. The Ninth Circuit has also granted equitable tolling when a
prisoner was placed in administrative segregation and denied all access to his
legal papers, despite his diligent attempts to retrieve them. Espinoza-Matthews v.
California, 432 F.3d 1021
, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Lott v. Mueller,
304 F.3d 918
, 924-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (remanding for further factfinding when
prisoner was denied access to his legal files during two temporary transfers that
lasted 82 days).
The district court distinguished Valverde by stating that Mr. Gabaldon had
made "no showing of affirmative or intentional misconduct on the part of a prison
official in taking the papers in the first instance," and by noting that prison
regulations "permit the Warden to restrict the number of legal materials an inmate
has access to when in disciplinary segregation." R. Doc. 30 at 3-4. But we do
not read Valverde as relying on the petitioner's assertion that the seizure was
intentional misconduct. See 224 F.3d at 135. Further, while prisons "may limit
the amount of legal materials an inmate may accumulate for security or
housekeeping reasons," 28 C.F.R. § 543.11(d)(2), the complete seizure of all legal
materials in this case appears to contravene 28 C.F.R. § 543.11(j), which states:
With consideration of the needs of other inmates and the availability
of staff and other resources, the Warden shall provide an inmate
confined in disciplinary segregation or administrative detention a
means of access to legal materials, along with an opportunity to
prepare legal documents. The Warden shall allow an inmate in
segregation or detention a reasonable amount of personal legal
[End Page 7]
(emphasis added). The word "shall" indicates a mandatory duty. See Qwest
Corp. v. FCC, 258 F.3d 1191
, 1200 (10th Cir. 2001).
The district court also distinguished Espinoza-Matthews, noting that it
"involved[ed] placement in administrative segregation for the inmate's own
protection," whereas Mr. Gabaldon was placed in segregation for "legitimate
disciplinary reasons." R. Doc. 30 at 3. It further held that Mr. Gabaldon's
"behavior that led to placement in disciplinary segregation is a circumstance
within his control." Id. at 4. But an inmate's right of reasonable access to legal
materials is not conditioned on the type of segregation to which he is assigned ""
§ 543.11(j) does not distinguish between disciplinary segregation and
We believe that a complete confiscation of Mr. Gabaldon's legal materials
just weeks before his filing deadline would constitute extraordinary circumstances
for the purposes of equitable tolling.
The district court also found that Mr. Gabaldon did not pursue his claims
with the required diligence before the seizure. It appears to have concluded that
he improvidently delayed filing his motion until late in the filing period because
he also wanted to file a brief, which was unnecessary for his § 2255 motion.
This, however, is not a case in which the movant could not have filed timely no
matter what prison officials did or did not do. Before the district court, in sworn
[End Page 8]
and unsworn submissions, Mr. Gabaldon detailed the numerous actions he took in
preparing his § 2255 motion between May 2005 and January 2006. 4 By the
beginning of February 2006, Mr. Gabaldon apparently had documents that were
close to being fileable, as his motion and brief were sent to his mother and then
filed only 22 days after his materials were returned to him.
Importantly, the statute gives a petitioner one year to file. As the Second
Circuit stated, a petitioner
is not ineligible for equitable tolling simply because he waited until
late in the limitations period to file his habeas petition. He would
have acted reasonably by filing his petition any time during the
applicable one-year period of limitations. Extraordinary
circumstances cannot "˜prevent' a petitioner from filing on time if,
prior to the occurrence of those circumstances, the petitioner has
been so neglectful in the preparation of his petition that even in the
absence of the extraordinary circumstances, a reasonable person in
the petitioner's situation would have been unable to file in the time
remaining within the limitations period. A petitioner should not be
faulted, however, for failing to file early or to take other
extraordinary precautions early in the limitations period against what
are, by definition, rare and exceptional circumstances that occur later
in that period.
Valverde, 224 F.3d at 136 (citation omitted). It appears that Mr. Gabaldon would
have met the one-year deadline had prison officials not seized his materials. And
it does not appear that the effort to prepare a brief otherwise would have caused
Mr. Gabaldon to miss the deadline; as he points out, his brief was the culmination
The district court noted that Mr. Gabaldon's filings contained various
inconsistencies about the preparation of his materials. Although we agree that
there are some inconsistencies in Mr. Gabaldon's various submissions, they do
not appear material to determining whether equitable tolling is appropriate.
[End Page 9]
of the research that he needed to do to determine what claims he could assert in
his motion, and that work would have been necessary whether or not he prepared
a brief. But even if he delayed filing his motion in order to prepare his brief, it
was his right to do so, because he had one year to file. Holding that he could and
should have filed the motion before his documents were seized not only would
arbitrarily shorten his limitations period, but also would unduly penalize him for
making the effort to research his claims thoroughly and set forth his arguments in
as compelling a manner as possible. Given that federal prisoners have only one
unrestricted chance to file a collateral attack on their convictions, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h), they are well-advised to make sure that the motion is thorough and
In addition to exhibiting diligence in pursuing his claims, Mr. Gabaldon
demonstrated due diligence in attempting to retrieve his seized legal materials
before his filing deadline. He presented his own statement under penalty of
perjury asserting that he made multiple requests that his documents be returned
before the deadline. He also presented a statement under penalty of perjury by
his cellmate regarding his requests for the return of his documents, and he
provided copies of written requests that he had submitted to prison staff seeking
the return of his documents.
[End Page 10]
Mr. Gabaldon's sworn statements and other evidence establish that the
district court abused its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the action on this
record. As in Valverde, however, "they are not sufficient to establish his ultimate
entitlement to equitable tolling." 224 F.3d at 135. In particular, the government
has not yet had the opportunity to contest Mr. Gabaldon's allegations in the
We vacate the dismissal of Mr. Gabaldon's § 2255 motion and remand to
the district court for further proceedings. As Valverde indicates, the district
court may use the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings to supplement the
record without necessarily convening an evidentiary hearing. See 224 F.3d at
The government's motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED;
the government may present its evidence to the district court in the first instance.
The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[End Page 11]