Albarran v. White
Albarran
Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL ALBARRAN, No. 24-2758 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 3:22-cv-05788-JNW v. MEMORANDUM* DAN WHITE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Jamal N. Whitehead, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 5, 2025** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Appellant Miguel Albarran (“Albarran”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition as untimely, contending he should be entitled to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). equitable tolling. We review de novo, Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and we affirm. Albarran was initially convicted of second-degree rape for assaulting his girlfriend’s thirteen-year-old daughter and sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years in prison under Washington state law. He later brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his trial counsel, alleging that his counsel did not adequately advise him to take a plea agreement. After unsuccessful state post- conviction proceedings ended, Albarran’s post-conviction counsel miscalculated a filing deadline and failed to timely file Albarran’s federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). To qualify for equitable tolling to excuse this late filing, Albarran must demonstrate (1) diligent pursuit of his rights and (2) some extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). However, miscalculating filing deadlines is not an extraordinary circumstance but rather run-of-the-mill attorney error that “is simply not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the postconviction context where prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel.” Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007); see also Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 647 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Attorney mistakes that warrant the label ‘garden variety’—like miscalculating a filing deadline—are the sort of mistakes that, regrettably, lawyers make all the 2 24-2758 time.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the district court properly rejected Albarran’s request for equitable tolling and dismissed his habeas petition as untimely. AFFIRMED. 3 24-2758
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Albarran v. White
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date: June 9, 2025
Citation: No. 24-2758
In Albarran v. White, the Ninth Circuit addressed the timeliness of a federal habeas petition filed by Miguel Albarran, who was convicted of second-degree rape. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Albarran's petition as untimely, rejecting his claims for equitable tolling based on attorney error.
Key Legal Issues
- Timeliness of Federal Habeas Petition: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a petitioner must file a habeas petition within one year of the final judgment.
- Equitable Tolling: The court examined whether Albarran qualified for equitable tolling due to extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing.
Court's Decision
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Albarran's habeas petition as untimely. The court found that Albarran did not meet the criteria for equitable tolling, as his claims were based on a miscalculation of filing deadlines by his post-conviction counsel.
Legal Reasoning
The court applied the standard for equitable tolling established in Holland v. Florida, which requires a petitioner to demonstrate:
- Diligent Pursuit: The petitioner must show that he diligently pursued his rights.
- Extraordinary Circumstances: There must be extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing.
The court noted that attorney errors, such as miscalculating deadlines, do not typically qualify as extraordinary circumstances. Citing Lawrence v. Florida, the court emphasized that such errors are considered "garden variety" mistakes and are insufficient to warrant equitable tolling.
Key Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Albarran's habeas petition due to untimeliness.
- Miscalculating filing deadlines by counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling.
- Petitioners do not have a constitutional right to effective counsel in post-conviction proceedings, limiting claims based on attorney errors.
Precedents and Citations
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007)
- Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015)
Practical Implications
The ruling in Albarran v. White underscores the importance of timely filing in habeas corpus cases and clarifies the limitations of equitable tolling. Legal practitioners should be aware that:
- Diligence in Filing: Petitioners must ensure that all filing deadlines are met to avoid dismissal.
- Counsel's Role: While ineffective assistance of counsel claims are common, they may not provide relief in the context of untimely filings unless extraordinary circumstances can be demonstrated.
- Post-Conviction Rights: The decision reaffirms that defendants do not possess a constitutional right to effective counsel during post-conviction proceedings, impacting the strategy for future habeas petitions.
This case serves as a critical reminder for attorneys and petitioners alike to maintain vigilance regarding procedural deadlines in the pursuit of post-conviction relief.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools