Quvadias Ruffin Versus State of Louisiana

QUVADIAS RUFFIN NO. 24-KH-511

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 19, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE QUVADIAS RUFFIN

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER,
JR., DIVISION "P", NUMBER 11-3134

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT GRANTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE;
MATTER REMANDED

Relator, Quvadias Ruffin, filed a pro se writ application, seeking review of
the district court’s September 7, 2023 judgment denying his application for post-
conviction relief (“APCR”). For the following reasons, we grant the writ
application and remand the matter to the district court.

On July 26, 2012, a unanimous jury convicted relator of one count of
convicted felon with a firearm and one count of armed robbery. This Court
affirmed relator’s convictions and sentences in 2013, and the Louisiana Supreme
denied relator’s writ application in 2014. State v. Ruffin, 13-393 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/12/13), 131 So.3d 330, writ denied, 14-0066 (La. 6/13/14), 140 So.3d 1194.

Relator’s APCR is based on an assertion of factual innocence. The instant
APCR was filed in the district court on September 1, 2023. Relator’s APCR filed
on that date contains an affidavit and a certificate of service dated December 16,
2022. On September 7, 2023, the district court denied relator’s APCR as untimely
and thus, procedurally barred. Relator contends his APCR was filed on December
16, 2022, when he placed it with prison officials for transmittal to the district court
for filing.

The Louisiana legislature established a filing deadline of December 31, 2022
for post-conviction relief applications which assert first claims of factual
innocence. La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2. In this writ application, relator asserts his APCR
was filed before the deadline set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2, and contends the

24-KH-511 1

district court erred in denying a merits review of his APCR on the grounds that it
was filed untimely.

Submitted in support of relator’s contention is a copy of his Offender’s
Request for Legal/Indigent Mail addressed to the 24th Judicial District Court which
is dated December 16, 2022. Also submitted is his Offender Funds Withdrawal
Request, which bears a handwritten notation stating, “Legal Mail.” Further, relator
attaches a copy of his original, unstamped APCR, which includes relator’s affidavit
dated December 16, 2022, bearing his signature and the notary’s signature. It also
contains a certificate of service signed and dated by relator on December 16, 2022.

Relator’s writ application states he re-filed his APCR, dated December 16,
2022, on September 1, 2023 after receiving notice that the trial court denied his
request to supplement the original APCR filing. Specifically, relator explains the
district court ruled on July 19, 2023 to deny his supplemental pleadings because
the relator’s APCR was never filed in the district court.

Pro se filings are subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
filed by lawyers. State ex rel. Egana v. State, 00-2351 (La. 9/22/00), 771 So.2d
638. In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988),
the Supreme Court noted the “unique circumstances” of the pro se inmate, finding
that unlike other litigants, “the pro se prisoner has no choice but to entrust the
forwarding of his notice of appeal to prison authorities whom he cannot control or
supervise.” As such, for the purpose of determining timeliness, the actual date of
filing for pleadings filed by inmates is the date the pleading is delivered to the
prison authorities. Id.; See also: State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley, 92-2689 (La.
1/6/95), 648 So.2d 909; Shelton v. Louisiana Dep't of Corr., 96-0348 (La. App. 1
Cir. 2/14/97), 691 So.2d 159.

In Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2009), the United States Fifth
Circuit applied the principle of Houston to a pro se inmate’s writ application that
purportedly never reached the intended recipient. Stoot, a Louisiana inmate,
claimed to have filed a pro se writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court
after the appellate court denied his writ application from the district court’s ruling
denying his APCR. Stoot, 570 F.3d at 670–71. A relative acting on Stoot’s behalf
discovered his writ application was never received by the Louisiana Supreme
Court. Id. Stoot then filed a second writ application, which the Supreme Court
“denied” as untimely. Id. Thereafter, Stoot filed a federal habeas corpus petition,
which the district court dismissed as untimely. Id.

On appeal from the dismissal of Stoot’s petition for habeas corpus, the
United States Fifth Circuit considered whether his writ application was timely filed
in state court, thereby tolling the period of limitation on his federal habeas petition.
Id. In support of his claim, Stoot presented an Inmate’s Request for Legal/Indigent
Mail as evidence that he had mailed an earlier writ application that the Supreme
Court had not received. Id. at 671. The Fifth Circuit applied the prison mailbox
rule to Stoot’s state court filing, finding:

[A] pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed on the date that the
prisoner submits the pleading to prison authorities to be mailed,
regardless of whether the pleading actually reaches the court. Under
such a rule, it is of course incumbent upon the petitioner to diligently

2
24-KH-511

pursue his petition. A failure to inquire about a lost petition is strong
evidence that the petition was, in fact, never sent.

Id. at 672. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that “reference to prison mail
logs usually answers the question of when the petition was actually mailed” but
concluded in Stoot’s case that “we are ill-equipped to determine whether Stoot’s
allegations are true.” Id. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded
Stoot’s case to the district court for a factual inquiry into whether Stoot submitted a
timely petition.

In the present case, relator’s APCR filed with the district court on September
1, 2023 appears untimely. However, like the scenario presented in Stoot, relator
has submitted an Offender’s Request for Legal/Indigent Mail, dated December 16,
2022, as evidence of his earlier filing. On the showing made, we find relator’s case
warrants a determination by the district court as to whether relator’s original APCR
was timely filed in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2’s December 31, 2022
deadline under the mailbox rule. See Houston, 487 U.S. 266.

Accordingly, we grant relator’s writ application, reverse the district court’s
judgment that denied relator’s APCR, and remand this matter to the district court
for the limited purpose of determining whether relator’s APCR was in fact timely
and, if so, we direct the district court to rule on the merits of relator’s APCR.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 19th day of November, 2024.

TSM
FHW
JJM

3
24-KH-511

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 11/19/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KH-511
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Hon. Lee V. Faulkner, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Quvadias Ruffin #412085 (Relator)
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712