Franklin v. State of New York

Second Circuit

Franklin v. State of New York

653 F. App'x 771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 2016

Docket15-1884

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 653 F. App'x 771 (Franklin v. State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin v. State of New York, 653 F. App'x 771 (2d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Steyen Franklin appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.), dismissing his habeas corpus petition as time-barred. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. Franklin argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling. A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling “only if he shows ‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)). “Equitable tolling applies only in the ‘rare and exceptional circumstance[ ].’ ” Smith v, McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 391-92 (5th Cir. 1999)). No record evidence supports Franklin’s assertion that an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing his petition; Franklin’s contention that he suffered from mental illness is belied by his ability to draft, during the operative time period, a motion to vacate the judgment in state court, and diligently study for his GED exam.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Franklin’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Steyen Franklin appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.), dismissing his habeas corpus petition as time-barred. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. Franklin argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling. A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling “only if he shows ‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)). “Equitable tolling applies only in the ‘rare and exceptional circumstance[ ].’ ” Smith v, McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 391-92 (5th Cir. 1999)). No record evidence supports Franklin’s assertion that an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing his petition; Franklin’s contention that he suffered from mental illness is belied by his ability to draft, during the operative time period, a motion to vacate the judgment in state court, and diligently study for his GED exam.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Franklin’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 F. App'x 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-state-of-new-york-ca2-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack