McCasland v. Vannoy

to flesh out factual details regarding the merits of the claims in narrow circumstances.⁴ On occasion, evidentiary hearings may also be held to determine if equitable tolling is warranted.⁵

Equitable tolling requires both that the litigant has been pursuing his rights diligently, and that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way of asserting his rights.⁶The facts of this case regarding an extraordinary circumstance are clear and require no further evidence. Though current case law leads this Court to conclude an extraordinary circumstance did not exist, reasonable jurists could disagree on this conclusion, so, as discussed below, a certificate of appealability will be issued.

II. The Petition is Untimely

Petitioner points to language the Louisiana Supreme Court used to deny the Motion for Reconsideration of the untimely writ and argues that the direct appeal was pending until the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.⁷Petitioner then goes further to argue that after the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, the conviction was not final for another 90 days, during which time he could have sought review at the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if this Court tolls all the time any pleading was pending at the Louisiana Supreme Court and does not start the clock for AEDPA⁸purposes until the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, the Petition remains untimely, as 401 days

2

of untolled time passed.⁹The argument that time was tolled for the 90 days within which petitioners may generally seek review at the United States Supreme Court falls flat. As noted in the Report and Recommendation and is clear from the case law, once a petitioner fails to timely file with the state courts, that is the end of review for purposes of AEDPA.¹⁰

III. A Certificate of Appealability Will Be Issued

Though the weight of the case law is against equitable tolling in this case, as discussed in the Report and Recommendation,¹¹the unique circumstances of this case warrant additional consideration. The controlling standard for whether a certificate of appealability should issue is whether "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented [are] adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."¹² The writ of certiorari filed with the Louisiana Supreme Court on direct appeal in this case was only two minutes and fifty seconds late and that that filing is what was the beginning spiral for the other failures in this case. That alone may not be sufficient for "reasonable jurists" to debate whether the matter should proceed further, but a review of recent decisions from the Louisiana Supreme Court demonstrates that it does not treat all untimely filings the same.

3

This very month, in Louisiana v. Frank,¹³the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized

"[o]ur rules expressly authorize relief for untimely filings 'due to technical failure.'"¹⁴In Frank, the court "exercise[d] [its] discretion…to review the application."¹⁵In Petitioner's case, technical errors were the precise reason for the untimely filing, and though the Louisiana Supreme Court's internal system did not show the writ application was uploaded before midnight in this case, as in Frank, Petitioner's attorney submitted ample evidence that he had been attempting to submit the filing for hours before the submission was successful. Considering this disparate treatment and that the writ at the Louisiana Supreme Court being deemed untimely appears to have been the first domino to fall and cause a cascade of problems, reasonable jurists could disagree on whether the circumstances of this particular case are extraordinary.

Similarly, reasonable jurists could disagree regarding whether Petitioner exercised sufficient diligence to benefit from equitable tolling.¹⁶The Court has specifically considered the fact that Petitioner had something pending in a court challenging his conviction and sentence continuously, until December 21, 2021, when the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs on Petitioner's PCR Application.¹⁷Thus, a certificate of appealability will be issued to determine whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling.

4

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

After a de novo review, the Court hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge¹⁸and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein, with the exception of the recommendation regarding a certificate of appealability. The question regarding whether Petitioner should be entitled to equitable tolling in this case is debatable among jurists of reason. Therefore, the Court will grant a certificate of appealability on the issue of equitable tolling, should Petitioner seek to appeal.

ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration of September 8, 2025 Ruling¹⁹filed by Respondent is GRANTED and the telephone conference set for November 12, 2025 is canceled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief is DENIED as untimely,²⁰and this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED with respect to whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, should Petitioner seek to appeal.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on this _______ day of November, 2025.

5