holding that equitable tolling is appropriate in circumstances that are beyond the party’s control when the party has exercised due diligence and is clearly prejudiced
How later courts described this case
- holding that equitable tolling is appropriate in circumstances that are beyond the party’s control when the party has exercised due diligence and is clearly prejudiced
- “We are reluctant to carte blanche amend our rules without following the formal procedures established for such amendments. CR 87.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Hallum v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.3d 55 (2011)
177 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Ky. 2005), overruled on other grounds in Hallum v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.3d 55
Overruled — as noted by a later court
Consequently, we overrule Robertson. Id. We agree with the Commonwealth that Hallum overruled Robertson’s, equitable tolling provisions with regard to the prison mailbox rule.
medium confidence
The opinion
Opinion by
Justice SCOTT
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I concur in that this court has at least adopted “an equitable tolling” rule, which may provide relief to prisoners when they have done “all that could reasonably be expected to get the [motion] to its destination within the required [time limit].”
I dissent because the majority has timidly strolled off into the night in the joyful company of a dissenting position in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) — the majority in which, adopted what is now called the “prison mailbox rule,” a more practical rule that simply relies on the “prison mail logs” to determine if a court document was given to the prison authorities prior to the limitations deadline.
The Supreme Court [has] held that [a] notice of appeal was timely filed “at the time petitioner delivered it to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk,” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), in part because “the moment at which pro se prisoners necessarily lose control over and contact with their notices of appeal is at delivery to prison authorities, not receipt by the clerk.” Id. at 275 , 108 S.Ct. at 2384 . The Ninth Circuit has held that this “mailbox rule” also applies in determining when an application for state postconviction review is “properly filed” for purposes of tolling the AEDPA’s limitations period. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568 (9th Cir.2000); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). The Sixth Circuit has recently determined that the Houston v. Lack “mailbox rule” applies also to civil complaints filed in federal district court by pro se prisoners. Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810 (6th Cir.2002).
It appears that the majority of state courts that have considered the issue have permitted pleadings of pro se prisoners to be deemed filed at the time they are deposited in the prison mail system. See Massaline v. Williams, 274 Ga. 552 , 554 S.E.2d 720, 722 (2001) (citing State v. Hurt, 107 Wash.App. 816 , 27 P.3d 1276, 1278 (2001); Sykes v. Mississippi, 757 So.2d 997, 1000-01 (Miss.2000); State ex rel. Egana v. Louisiana, 771 So.2d 638 (La., 2000); Taylor v. McKune, 25 Kan. App.2d 283 , 962 P.2d 566, 569-70 (1998); Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58 , 700 A.2d 423, 426 (1997); Munson v. State, 128 Idaho 639 , 917 P.2d 796, 799-800 (1996); Mayer v. Arizona, 184 Ariz. 242 , 908 P.2d 56,57 (App.1995); Ex parte Williams, 651 So.2d 569, 571 (Ala.1992); In re Jordan, 4 Cal.4th 116 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 840 P.2d 983, 985 (1992); Woody v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 1992 OK 45 , 833 P.2d 257, 259-60 (Okla.1992); Haag v. Florida, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992);Kel logg v. Journal Communications, 108 Nev. 474 , 835 P.2d 12, 13-14 (1992);Com monwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 , 553 N.E.2d 1299, 1301-02 (1990); See also Setala v. J.C. Penney Company, 97 Hawaii 484 , 40 P.3d 886 (Haw.2002); Hickey v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 127 Or.App. *794 727 , 874 P.2d 102 (1994) (applying Oregon law); McGill v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, 636 N.E.2d 199 (Ind.App.1994); See also State v. Parker, 986 P.2d 1118, 1120-21 (Utah App.1997) (noting, “We understand why many of our sister states have decided to adopt Houston’s interpretation of the federal rules to their own state rules of procedure,” but leaving the question for the state supreme court to decide).
At least one state has amended its procedural rules to create a “prison mailbox rule.” The Tennessee Supreme Court amended Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.06 on July 1, 1997 to liberalize the filing rules for incarcerated pro se prisoners. From and after that date, papers prepared by or filed on behalf of an incarcerated pro se prisoner are deemed to have been filed with the trial court when they are “delivered to the appropriate individual at the correctional facility.”
In defense of adopting the “prison mailbox rule” at this time, I would note that we have a finite number of trial judges and time to handle an ever increasing docket of cases — and by depending on “equitable tolling” to solve the problem, we have created another hearing with multiple briefs and evidentiary questions prior to the trial court’s thoughtful review and ruling.
Adopting the “prison mailbox rule” would have been so much simpler for everyone.