What is equitable tolling?

Federal habeas corpus for both federal and state prisoners operates under strict timelines. Both are subject to a one-year timeframe from various dates of finality. [1]

But what happens if the timeframe is missed?

Are there any exceptions?

This is where equitable tolling comes in. Equitable tolling is a judicially created exception where courts excuse the failure to comply with strict timelines under certain circumstances. [2] Courts had excused various issues in different contexts, [3] and then applied it to habeas corpus timelines. [4]

To be entitled to equitable tolling, a petitioner must show

“‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” [5]

Reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstances are not overlapping elements; rather, they are separate elements which must both be met. [6]

On diligence, the measure of diligence is “reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible diligence.” [7]

For example, when a death-sentenced petitioner represented by appointed attorneys wrote multiple letters to the attorneys expressing concern over their possible miscalculation of his federal habeas corpus timeline, such a petitioner acted with diligence. [8]

On extraordinary circumstances, federal habeas petitioners must bear the risk of their attorney’s errors. [9] Garden variety neglect such as a miscalculation that leads an attorney to miss a filing deadline does not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances. [10] Attorney misconduct rising to the level of an abandonment of the client may rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances. [11]

Self-represented petitioners should take note that equitable tolling jurisprudence does not act to excuse pro se ignorance of the applicable timelines or denial of law library access. [12] This might seem unfair. Federal habeas case law has thousands of opinions interpreting the timeliness of petitions filed by state prisoners. Each self-represented state prisoner must also figure out the applicable law in his or her state and how it fits into the federal habeas calculation. Nonetheless, fair or not, this is the state of the law.

Federal habeas corpus is complicated. Even the time calculation can be calculated. If you or someone you love is in state or federal prison and in need of federal habeas corpus, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

Citations:

1.    28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255), and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), (http://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2244).

2.    Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 650 (2010). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/631/).

3.    See, e.g., Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/538/).

4.    Holland, supra.

5.    Id. at 649 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/408/).

6.    Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 853 F.3d 1216, 1225 (11th Cir. 2017).

7.    Holland, 560 U.S. at 653.

8.    Downs v. McNeil, 520 F.3d 1311, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/77952/downs-v-mcneil/).

9.    Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752-53 (1991). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7662.ZD.html).

10. Hollands, 560 U.S. at 651-52.

11. See Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 287-89 (2012)  (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/621045/maples-v-thomas/), and Thomas v. AG, 992 F.3d 1162, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 2021) (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/606b95b34653d00386521f99).

12. Bell v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 248 Fed. Appx. 101, 104-05 (11th Cir. 2007) (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59146d1cadd7b0493431d232) (citing Akins v. U.S., 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2000)) (https://openjurist.org/204/f3d/1086).