F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT JULY 25, 2011 JO HN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 84 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 03 99 -UU JUAN CARLOS CHAVEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E STATE OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Ju stas t im e wai ts forno on e, th ere a re l im it s o n h ow l on g o urleg al syste m wil l wai t fo r an y on e to bri ng a cl ai m . Tho se li m it s ar e ex pr es se d i n a nden fo rcedby sta tu te s o f li m it at io ns an d d oc tri ne s o f rep os e. The s ta tu te of l im it at io ns

in vo lv edinth is cas e is th e o ne th atrequi res a pr is on er s eek in g fe de ral habe as
co rp us rel ie f to fil e th e p et it io n wi th in on e y ear a fte r th e co nc lu si on of h is di rect ap pe al . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d ). The s ta tu te it se lf p ro vi de s t ha t t he ti m e sp en t li ti ga ti ng a pr op erl y

fil edst at e co ll at eral att ackdo es no t co un t ag ai ns t t he pe ti ti on er, s ee i d. § 22 44 (d )(2 ), an d the Supr em e Co urt h as de ci de d t ha t i n
ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces , andwhen th e p et it io ne r ha s s ho wn re as on ab le di li ge nc e, equi tabl e to ll in g m ay ap pl y to pre ve ntothe r ti m e fro m co un ti ng . This ap pe al is ab ou t t ha t d oc tri ne an d wh et he r itap pl ie s u nd er t he cir cu m st an ces of t hi s
cas e. I. Ju an Carl os Ch av ez was co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc edto de at h fo r th e ki dn ap pi ng , sad is ti c se xu al ba tt ery, an d m ur de r of a ni ne -y ear- ol d c hi ld . See Ch av ez v . Sta te , 83 2 S o. 2 d 7 30 , 73 6– 41 (Fl a. 20 02 ). His co nv ic ti on s an d
se nt en ce were affi rm edon di rectap pe al , see id ., andth e Supr em e Co urt d en ie d cert io rari in Ju ne of 2 00 3. Ch av ez fi le d am ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in st at e
co urt i n M ay

of 2 00 5, an d t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s de ni al of t ha t m ot io n i n J un e o f 20 09 . See Ch av ez v . Sta te , 12 So . 3d19 9 (F la
. 20 09 ). In F eb ru ary 20 10 Ch av ez fi le d i n fe de ral co urt a 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on
2fo r writof h ab eas co rp us . Buthe ha d aser io us pro bl em : h is pe ti ti on was n otfil ed

wit hi n t he on e-year pe rio d s pe ci fie d i n 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d )(1 ), th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns pro vi si on of the Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct . Rec og ni zi ng th atpro bl em , in hi s b el at edfed eral habe as pe ti ti on Ch av ez al le ge d fa ct s t ha t h e co nt en de d e nt it le d h im to en ou gh equi tabl e to ll in g t o b rin g i ts fil in g wi th in th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . His p et it io n re qu es te d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng so th athe co ul d p ro ve th os e fac tu al all eg at io ns . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d th e req ue stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng an d d is m is se d t he pe ti ti on on st atut e o f li m it at io ns gro un ds , reas on in g t ha t ev en if a ll of t he all eg at io ns in th e p et it io n were t ru e, Ch av ez s ti ll wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto en ou gh equi tabl e to ll in g t o b rin g th e fi li ng wit hi n t he on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d. Th is is hi s ap pe al of t ha t di sm is sa l. II. Ch av ez fi le d h is 86 -p ag e p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 o n F eb ru ary 9, 2 01 0. He s pe ntm uc h o f th e fi rs t t wen ty pag es of tha t pe ti ti on sp el li ng ou t h is po si ti on th athe was e nt it le d t o e qu it ab le to ll in g o f th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . He all eg edva rio us fact s ab ou t h is po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l
an d wh atha d o ccu rredbe twee n t he affi rm an ce o f hi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e o n di rectap pe al in 20 02 an d t he is su an ce o f th e m an da te forth e Fl or id a Supr em e 3Co urt’s d eci si on in 20 09 affi rm in g t he tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Afterall eg in g t ho se fact s an d c on te nd in g t ha t t he y jus ti fie d equi tabl e to ll in g, Ch av ez re qu es te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng inord er “ to be gi ve n th e o pp ortu ni ty to es tabl is h h is en ti tl em en t” to th e to ll in g h e so ug ht
. The di stric t co urt i ss ue d a n o rd er req ui rin g t he Sta te of F lo rid a to fil e a
m em or an du m

of f actan d l aw sh owi ng cau se why th e p et it io n s ho ul d n otbe gr an te d. Th e co urt d ire ct edth atth e m em or an du m : b e a c c om

pa ni ed by a co m

pr eh en si ve ap pe nd ix , whi ch sh al l in cl ud e co pi es of : 1) a l l rel ev an t st at e tri al an d ap pe ll at e co urt pl ead in gs ; 2) tra ns cri pt s of th e pe ti ti on e r ’s t r ia l or pl ea co ll oq uy; 3) br ie fs fil ed on di rect ap pe al ; 4) m ot io ns se ek in g rel ie f pu rs ua nt to Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 , in cl ud in g tra ns cri pt s of co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng s, an d br ie fs fro m an y en su in g ap pe al ; 5) st at e habe as co rp us ap pl ic at io ns an d br ie fs fro m an y en su in g ap p e a l ; [an d] 6) reco rd s of an y ot he r st at e co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs th atm ay

be rel ev an t t o t he fed eral is su es . . . . Inco m pl ia nc e, th e St at e fi le d a13 0- pa ge res po ns e. Befo re ad dr es si ng th e m eri ts of Ch av ez’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , th e St at e arg ue d t ha t the pe ti ti on ha d n otbe en ti m el y fil edan d t ha t Ch av ez was no t en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g. With res pe ctto Ch av ez’s req ue stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g, t he St at e arg ue d t ha t b ecau se th e al le ga ti on s o f hi s p et it io n wer e “ in su ffi ci en t as a
m at te r of law t o warran t eq ui tabl e to ll in g,” he was n oten ti tl edto a he ari ng on th e is su e. The Sta te als o s ub m it te d t o t he di st ric t co urt a v ol um in ou s re co rd ,

4co ns is ti ng of n in e b ox es th atco nt ai ne d wel l o ve r 25 ,00 0 p ag es of d oc um en ts .

The di stric t co urt en te redanord er d is m is si ng Ch av ez’s h ab eas pe ti ti on on st atut e o f li m it at io ns gro un ds , agr eei ng with t he Sta te th atth e p et it io n was no t ti m el y fil edan d re

jecti ng Ch av ez’s arg um en t t ha t h e h adpl ead eden ou gh fact s t o st at e a v iabl e cl ai m

to equi tabl e to ll in g. Th e o rd er ex pl ai ne d tha t Ch av ez was no t
en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e is su e b ecau se ev en if e ve ryth in g h e al le ge d i n h is pe ti ti on were t ru e, th os e al le ga ti on s wo ul d n oten ti tl e h im to equi tabl e to ll in g o f en ou gh ti m e to m ak e h is pe ti ti on ti m el y . The d is tri ctco urt d id , ho wev er, g ran t a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y so th atth is Co urt co ul d c on si de r

“ whe th er [C ha ve z] dem on st rat edth athe is en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e o ne y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d i m po se d b y 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ).” III. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f equi tabl e to ll in g d e n ov o, Dre w v. Dep ’t of Co rr., 29 7 F .3d12 78 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), an d we r ev ie w it s d en ia l o f
an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, i d. at12 92 . In t he pre se nt
cas e th os e two st an da rd s o f rev ie w bl en d t og ethe r in to th is : i f we ag ree wi th th e di st ric t co urt t ha t t he fact s al le ge d i n t he habe as pe ti ti on are n oten ou gh to m ak e Ch av ez’s p et it io n t im el y

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) , th enitwas n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d en y hi m anev id en ti ary he ari ng , andth e co urt
5di d n oterr b y di sm is si ng hi s p et it io n. IV. In a h ab eas co rp us pro ceed in g “ [t]he bu rd en is on th e p et it io ne r . . . to
es tabl is h t he ne edforanev id en ti ary he ari ng .” Bir t v . Mo nt go m ery, 72 5 F .2d58 7, 59 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (en ba nc ); s ee al so Dick so n v . W ai nwr ig ht , 68 3 F .2d34 8, 35 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) (“ W e em ph as iz e th atth e b ur de n i s o n t he pe ti ti on er i n a habe as co rp us pro ceed in g t o a ll eg e su ffi ci en t fa ct s t o s up po rt t he gra ntof a n
ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d t ha t t hi s co urt wi ll no t b li nd ly accep t s pe cu la ti ve an d in co nc ret e cl ai m s as th e b as is up on whi ch a he ari ng wil l b e o rd ered .” (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) ).

“ Inde ci di ng whet he r to gra ntanev id en ti ary he ari ng , a fed eral co urt m us t
co ns id er wh ethe r su cha he ari ng co ul d e nabl e an ap pl ic an t t o p ro ve th e p et it io n’s factua l al le ga ti on s, wh ic h, i f true , wou lden ti tl e th e ap pl ic an t t o fe de ral habe as rel ie f.” Sch rir o v . Landrig an , 55 0 U.S. 4 65 , 47 4, 1 27 S.Ct . 19 33 , 19 40 (20 07 ). Tha t m ean s tha t i f a h ab eas pe ti ti on do es no t al le ge en ou gh sp eci fic fact s tha t, i f th ey were t ru e, wou ldwarran t re li ef, t he pe ti ti on er i s n oten ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng . Alle n v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 63 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ Hav in g a ll eg edno sp eci fic fact s t ha t, i f true , wou lden ti tl e h im to fed eral habe as rel ie f, All en is no t en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng .”); Po rte r v. Wain wrig ht , 80 5
6F.2 d 9 30 , 93 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (“ Whi le th e d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o c on du ctan

ev id en ti ary he ari ng in cert ai n c irc um st an ces , su ch a he ari ng is no t re qu ire d u nl es s th e p et it io ne r al le ge s fa ct s wh ic h, i f pr ov ed , wou lden ti tl e h im to fed eral habe as rel ie f.”). 1 The all eg at io ns m

us t b e fac tu al an d s pe ci fic , no t co nc lu so ry . Con cl us ory al le ga ti on s ar e si m

pl y no t en ou gh to warran t a h eari ng . SanMart in v. Mc Neil , 63 3 F .3d12 57 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ ‘An e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng m ay

be ne ces sa ry whe re the m at eri al fact s ar e in di sp ut e, bu t a p et it io ne r is no t en ti tl edto an
ev id en ti ary he ari ng when hi s cl ai m s ar e m erel y co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns
un supp orte d b y

sp eci fic s.’” (quo ti ng Pu gh v. Sm it h, 4 65 F.3d12 95 , 13 00 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 )); see als o B oyd v . All en , 59 2 F .3d12 74 , 13 06 –0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (“ On t hi s s can t re co rd , we can no t s ay th atBo y d’s al le ga ti on s amoun t t o a nyth in g
m or e th an th e m erel y

co nc lu so ry , no r th atth e d is tri ctco urt h as ab us edit s
co ns id erab le di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o h ol d ahe ari ng on hi s cl ai m .” (ci ta ti on
om it te d) ).
AEDPA does c ontain additional restric tions on a fede ral c ourt g rantingan evide ntiary 1 hearing in a

state prisoner ’s habe as proc eeding . See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (2); Cullen v. Pinhols ter, __U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011); see a lso, Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474, 127 S.Ct. at 1940 (“ Be causethe def ere ntial standards pre scribed by § 2254 control whe ther to grant ha beas relief , a fe dera l court must take into acc ount those standards in dec iding whe ther a n evidentiar

y hearing is a

ppropriate .”). Those additional restric tions do not, however, a pply to the § 2244(d) statute of limitations t olling issues bef ore us, be cause whether

the statute is equitably

tolled is a purely fede ral issue, whic h did not arise until Chavez’s fede ral ha beas pe tition was filed. 7Of co ur se , all of t he se pri nc ip le s o f la w wou ldm eanno th in g i f di st ric t

co urts were re qu ire d t o m in e th e rec or d, p ro sp ect in g fo r fac ts th atth e h ab eas pe ti ti on er o ve rlo ok edan d c ou ldha ve , bu t d idno t, b rin g t o t he su rfac e in hi s pe ti ti on . Mak in g d is tri ctco urts di g t hr ou gh vo lu m es of d oc um en ts an d t ran sc rip ts
wou ldsh iftth e b ur de n o f si fti ng fro m pe ti ti on ers to th e co urts . W it h atypic al ly he av y cas el oa d a ndalwa y s l im it edres ou rces , a di stric t co urt ca nn otbe ex pe ct edto do a pe ti ti on er’s wo rkfor hi m . Cf. Adl er v . Duv al Cn ty. Sch . Bd., 1 12 F.3d14 75 , 14 81 n.1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (no ti ng in a ci vi l ca se th at , abs en t p la in erro r, “ itis no t
ou r pl ace a s an ap pe ll at e co urt t o s eco ndgu es s t he li ti ga nt s b efo re u s an d g ran t th em rel ie f . . . bas edon fact s t he y di d n otrel at e.”); Jo hn so n v . Cit y of F ort Lau de rd al e, 12 6 F .3d13 72 , 13 73 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ [W] e are no t o bl ig at edto cu ll th e rec or d o ur se lv es in sea rch of f act s n otin cl ud edin th e st at em en ts of f act .”). The Sev en th Cir cu itm em or ab ly saidth atap pe ll at e jud ge s “ are n otli ke pi gs , hu nt in g fo r truf

fle s b ur ie d i n b rie fs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dun ke l, 9 27 F.2d95 5, 9 56 (7 th Cir .19 91 ). Lik ewis e, di st ric t co urt ju dg es are n otrequi redto ferre t o ut de le ct ab le fact s b ur ie d i n am as si ve reco rd , li ke th e o ne in th is cas e, whi ch was
m or e th an 25 ,00 0 p ag es of d oc um en ts an d t ran sc rip ts . V. The di stric t co urt h adno th in g b efo re i t re le va ntto th e equi tabl e to ll in g 8is su e, ex cep t t he da te s o f th e p rin ci pa l p ro cedur al hi st ory ev en ts an d t he al le ga ti on s i n t he habe as pe ti ti on ab ou t wh y itha d n otbe enfil edso on er. In it s
or de r de nyin g a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d: Pet it io ne r’s alle gatio ns re ga rd ing the co nduc t of pos t-c on vi ct io n co un se l an d th e act io ns h e to ok in res po ns e th eret o are la rg el y un supp orte d. Pet it io ne r of

fere d no ex hi bi ts in co nju nc ti on wit h eit he r hi s Peti ti on or hi s Rep ly, an d th e reco rd , pr ov id ed by Res po nd en t, un de rs ta nd ab ly do es no t in cl ud e ev id en ce of th e co m m un ic at io ns th at tra ns pi red be twee n Ch av ez an d hi s co un se l. Add it io na ll y, P e t i t io ne r ha s no t supp li ed th e Co urt wit h co un se l’s m ot io ns to withdraw or th e st at e co ur t ’s o r d ers di sp os in g of th os e m ot io ns . Pet it io ne r ha s reque st ed an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to pr ov e t h e f

act s al le ge d; ho wev er, be cau se Pet it io ne r’s al le ga ti on s, ev en if tru e, do no t warrant equi tabl e to ll in g, no ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d n o s up pl em en ta ti on of the reco rdare re qu ire d. Doc . 22 at 6 n.4
. Thu s, t he equi tabl e to ll in g i ss ue ris es or f al ls wit h the 2
Be fore oral a

rgument, we a sked the pa rties to respond to those stateme nts from the 2 district court’s orde r. The pa rties filed a

joint response to our memora nda, providingus with 36 differ ent supplemental doc uments. See Joi nt Response to Court Memoranda Direc ting Par

ties to Supplement the Record. F ollowing or al ar gument, we a sked the pa rties to clarify

whether some of those supplementa l documents that related to Chavez’s three sets of post-convic tion attorney s had bee n or had not be en bef ore the district court whe n it issued its decision in this case. I n their response s, the parties a g ree d that the supplemental doc uments we a sked about, with one irrele vant exception, had not bee n in the rec ord bef ore the district court or other wise provided to that court. See Petitioner-Appellant’ s Response to May 20, 2011, Memorandum to All Counsel; Reply to Petiti oner’ s Response to Court Direc tive of May 20, 2011. The supplementa l documents the pa

rties provided to us that we re r elated to Chave z’s post-conviction counsel we re not in the vast rec ord of we ll over 25,000 pag es of doc uments and transc ripts that were put befor e the district cour

t. See id. As a re sult, we will not consider those docume nts in determining whether the district court a bused its discretion in denying a n evidentiar

y hearing ba sed on the re cord materials that wer e bef ore it. Sammons v. Tay

lor, 967 F.2d 1533, 1544 ( 11th Cir. 1992) (“[A]s a ge nera l rule, an appe llate cour

t will not consider arguments or evidenc e not pre sented to the district cour t.”); Holly v. Clairson Indus., L .L .C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1258 n.12 (11th Cir. 2007) (“ Be cause this evidenc e is not part of the rec ord below, w e do not consider it here.” ); L ee Cnty . Br anch of NAACP v. City

of Ope lika, 748 F.2d 1473, 1481 ( 11th Cir. 1984) (“[A]bsent ex traordina ry 9al le ga ti on s o f th e p et it io n re adag ai ns t t he pro cedur al hi st ory of the cas e. A. T he habe as pe ti ti on reco un ts th e p rimary ev en ts in th e p ro cedur al hi st ory , whi chfram e th e is su e b efo re u s. Th os e ev en ts are t he se : Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edCh av ez’s co nv ic ti on an d d eat h s en te nc e o n No ve m be r 21 , 20 02 , Ch av ez v . Sta te , 83 2 S o. 2 d 7 30 (20 02 ), an d t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt de ni edhi s p et it io n fo r writof c ert io rari on Ju ne 23 , 20 03 , Cha ve z v . Flo rid a, 53 9 U.S. 94 7, 1 23 S.Ct . 26 17 (20 03 ) (m em .). Cha ve z fi le d am ot io n fo r st at e p os tco nv ic ti on rel ie f on May 5, 20 05 , andanam en de d m ot io n o n Oct ob er 4 , 20 06
. The tri al co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n o n M arch 8, 2 00 7. Ch av ez t he n app eal edth e de ni al of p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, wh ic h a ffi rm edth e tri al co urt’s d eci si on on Ju ne 25 , 20 09 . Cha ve z v . Sta te , 12 So . 3d19 9 (F la
. 20 09 ). Thatco urt i ss ue d t he m an da te in Ch av ez’s ca se on Ju ly 21, 2 00 9. He fi le d hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on in fed eral di st ric t co urt o n F eb ru ary 9, 2 01 0. B. The st atut e o f li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg an run ni ng when th e Uni te d S ta te s

circ umstances, f

eder al appe llate cour

ts will notconsider e vidence that was not par t of the trial rec ord.”) ; see a lso Sm ith v. Sec’y , Dep’ t of Corr., 572 F .3d 1327, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009) (“B eca use the issue or a

rgument was not prope rly prese nted to the district court, we will not decide it.”). 10Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari in th e d ire ctap pe al on Ju ne 23 , 20 03 . See 2 8

U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). The du rat io n o f st atut ory to ll in g b y

vi rtu e o f § 22 44 (d )(2 ) was fro m

May 5, 20 05 , when Ch av ez fi le d h is m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f in th e st at e tr ia l co urt, t hr ou gh Ju ly 21, 2 00 9, wh en th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d i ts m an da te affi rm in g t he de ni al of t ha t m ot io n. There was 3
no m or e st atut ory

to ll in g a fte r th atpo in t. See i d. Ch av ez d idno t fi le hi s fe de ral 4 habe as pe ti ti on un ti l Fe br ua ry 9, 2 01 0. As o urreco un ti ng sh ows , th e li m it at io ns pe rio d ra n wi th ou t s ta tu to ry to ll in g

This statement about statutory tolling is depende nt on the assumption we ar e g oing to 3 make that the one -year

AEDPA statute of limitations had not alrea dy run out by

May 5, 2005, when Chave z filed his mot ion for post-convic tion relief in state c ourt. See Webster v. Moor e, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 ( 11th Cir. Ci r. 2000) ( “A state -cour t petition . . . that is filed followingthe expiration of the [federa l] limit ations period ca nnot toll that per iod beca

use there is no period rema ining to be tolled.” ). After the Flor ida Supreme Court issued its opinion affirmingthe denial of post- 4 conviction re lief, Chavez did file a pe tition for writ of ce rtiorari with the United States Supreme Court . That petition was denied on N ovember 2, 2009, Chavez v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 501 (2009) (mem.), but the f

iling of the cer

tiorari petition and the date it was denie d areirrele vant for calc ulating the statutory

tolling of AED PA’s statute of limitations. As the Supreme Court has held conc erningpetitions for ce rtiorar i filed at the e nd of state c ollatera l review : After the State’s highe st court has issued its mandate or denied revie w, no other state avenue s for relief rema in ope n. And an application for state postconviction revie w no longe r ex ists. Al l that rema ins is a separate cer tiorari petiti on pending befor e a fede ral court. The application for state postconviction revie w is th er ef o re not “pending ” afte r the state court’s postconviction revie w is complete, and § 2244(d)( 2) does not toll the 1-year limit ations period during the pendenc y of a p et i t ion for cer tiorari. L awr ence v. Florida , 549 U.S. 327, 332, 127 S.C t. 1079, 1083 (2007). 11fo r 68 2 d ay s b et ween th e d en ia l o f certi or ari on di rectap pe al on Ju ne 23 , 20 03 ,

an d t he fil in g o f th e m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f on May 5, 20 05 . Anditran wit ho utst atut ory

to ll in g fo r an ot he r 20 3 d ay s b et ween th e is su an ce o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s m an da te in th e st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g o n J ul y 21 , 20 09 , and th e fi li ng of t he fed eral habe as pe ti ti on on Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 0. In su m , th e to ta l t im e th e li m it at io ns pe rio d ra n wi th ou t s ta tu to ry to ll in g i s 6 82 + 20 3 = 88 5 d ay s, wh ic h is 52 0 d ay s b ey on d t he on e y ear a ll ot te d i n § 22 44 (d )(1 ). Unl es s t he all eg at io ns of th e h ab eas pe ti ti on , if t ru e, es tabl is h t ha t Ch av ez i s en ti tl edto 52 0 d ay s o f equi tabl e to ll in g, t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng th atth e p et it io n was ti m e-b arre d i s
co rrec t. C. Ch av ez’s p et it io n s et s o utth e fo ll owi ng all eg at io ns ab ou t wh athi s thr ee s et s of po st -co nv ic ti on att orne y s di d o r fai le d t o d o b etween th e ap po in tm en t o f th e fir statt orne y

inMay 200 3 a ndth e fi li ng of t he fed eral habe as pe ti ti on by the th ird at to rn ey ’s law p art ne r in Feb ru ary 20 10
. 5 The st at e tr ia l co urt ap po in te d J oh n Li pi ns ki to rep res en t Ch av ez i n h is st at e po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs , andLip in sk i fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe aran ce o n M ay 23 ,
Andre a Nor g ard w as the third attorne y appointed to re prese nt Chavez in his s tate post- 5 conviction proc eeding s. She filed the ame nded motion for post-convic tion relief on Oc tober 4, 2006. Her

law par tner (a nd husband) Rober

t Norg ard f

iled Chavez’s fede ral ha

beas pe tition. . 1220 03 , on e m on th be fo re t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari in

Ch av ez’s d ire ctap pe al . Lip in sk i’s co -co un se l, To ddSch er, v is it edCh av ez a s ho rt ti m e aft er Lip in sk i was ap po in te d, an d C ha ve z la te r m ai le d S ch er a l is t o f pr op os edpo in ts th athe want edrai se d i n apo st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n. Des pi te th at
co m m un ic at io n andot he r “ rep eat edin qu iri es ” ab ou t t he st atus of the m ot io n, Ch av ez re cei ve d n o re sp on se fro m eit he r Lip in sk i o r Sch er. On J an ua ry

26 , 20 04 , Lip in sk i re qu es te d, u nd er Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 1( d) (5 ), th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt g ran t h im anex te ns io n 6
un ti l J ul y 19 , 20 04 , to fil e Ch av ez’s s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n. Acco rd in g t o th e al le ga ti on s o f th e fed eral habe as pe ti ti on , th e g ro un ds forth atex te ns io n wer e Lip in sk i’s h eal th pro bl em s, wh ic h h adledto hi s h os pi ta li zat io n fo r a h eart pr oc edur e o n J an ua ry

21 , 20 04 , justa few d ay s b efo re he fil edth e req ue stforan
ex te ns io n o f ti m e. The ex te ns io n m ot io n i ts el f st at edth atLip in sk i h adbe en
su ffer in g fr om

“ swe at in g, wat eri ng ey es , sh ortn es s o f br eat h, ‘ti ng li ng ’ in hi s l eft ha nd , ele va te d b lo odsu ga r, an d t ro ub le rem ai ni ng ale rt, a wak e an d fo cu se d fo r ho ur s ata ti m e.” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 provides that “[a]ll pleadings in the 6 postconviction proce edingshall be filed with the c lerk of the trial court,” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(f) (1), but that “[a]n ext ension of time may be grante d by

the Supreme Court of F lorida for the filingof postconviction pleading s if the prisoner ’s counse l makes a showingof g ood cause ,” id. 3.851(d)(5)
. 13Ch av ez’s h ab eas pe ti ti on all eg es th atLip in sk i s ti ll ha d t ho se sym pt om s whe n h e m etwit h C ha ve z fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n J ul y 9, 2 00 4, m or e th an a y ear a fte r he ha d b een ap po in te d a s p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou ns el . Lipi ns ki was “ ou t o f it ,”
acco rd in g t o t he pe ti ti on , and“ ap pe aredun ab le to rem ai n a le rt, a wak e, an d fo cu se d.” Ju sta few week s l at er, o n J ul y 19 , 20 04 , Lip in sk i fi le d am ot io n o n be ha lf o f Ch av ez fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Bu t t he pe ti ti on all eg es th atth ere
were s ig ni fic an t p ro bl em s wi th th atm ot io n: Cha ve z “ di d n otkn ow t he ori gi n o f
so m e o f th e st at em en ts . . . m ad e in th e m ot io n,” an d Li pi ns ki ha d turne d s om e o f Ch av ez’s an swe rs to hi s q ue st io ns “ba ckward .” As a re su lt , Cha ve z ref us edto si gn th e m ot io n, b ecau se he be li ev edth atit“ co nt ai ne d s ta te m en ts th atwere u nt ru e,”

“ was in effe ct iv e,” an d “ de m on st rat edth atMr. Lip in sk i was no t co m pe te ntto pr op erl y ha nd le hi s p os tc on vi ct io n l it ig at io n.” The h ab eas pe ti ti on adm it s t ha t be cau se Ch av ez re fu se d t o s ig n t he st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n, i t “ was no t u nd er
oa th as r equi redby Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0” an d was th eref or e 7
no t “ a p ro pe rly fil edpo st co nv ic ti on m ot io n.” There fo re, t he pe ti ti on co nc ed es , it

“ di d n otto ll th e ti m e fo r Mr. Ch av ez t o fi le hi s fe de ral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on .” 8
Tec hnically

speaking , motions t o set aside a death se ntence are filed under Florida Rule 7 of Criminal Procedur e 3.851, not 3.850, but motions for relief under e ither of those two r ules must be sworn. Compare Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(e)( 1), with 3.850(c)
. We agree with that conce ssion. In order to statutorily

toll the running of

the limitations 8 period, a n application for

state collate ral re lief must be “pr operly filed” unde r state law . See 28 14The pe ti ti on als o a ll eg es th ataft er Lip in sk i fi le d the un swo rnst at e p os tco nv ic ti on m ot io n a nyway , Cha ve z fi le d i n s ta te co urt a p ro se m ot io n t o d is ch arg e hi m . Cha ve z at ta ch edto th e m ot io n aha nd writ te n l et te r to th e co urt “ in whi ch he st at edth athe co ul d n otge t ei th er Mr . Lip in sk i o r co -co un se l, Mr . Sch er, t o
res po ndto hi m

forov er a year de sp it e rep eat edatt em pt s o n h is pa rt t o a sc ert ai n th e st atus of h is cas e.” Ch av ez’s l et te r co m pl ai ne d abo utth e u ns worn c ol la te ral at ta ck m ot io n t ha t Li pi ns ki ha d fi le d, as se rti ng th atin itLip in sk i h ad“ m ix edup
an d c on fu se d the co nt en t o f th e in it ia l i nt erv ie w” with C ha ve z an d h adin cl ud ed“ a bu nc h o f fo ol is hn es s.” F orhi s p art , Lip in sk i re qu es te d t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt g ran t h im

anen la rg em en t o f ti m e to fil e a s worn p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n, whi chitdi d, g iv in g Li pi ns ki un ti l Se pt em be r 7, 2 00 4, t o fi le a swo rnm ot io n i n t he st at e tr ia l co urt. Bu t Li pi ns ki ne ve r ha d ach an ce t o d o s o. On Aug us t 2 5, 2 00 4, t he st at e tri al co urt g ran te d C ha ve z’s pr o s e m ot io n t o re m ov e Lip in sk i, an d i t ap po in te d at to rn ey Lee W ei ss enbo rnto rep la ce h im . The o nl y m ot io n fo r st at e p os tco nv ic ti on rel ie f th atLip in sk i ev er fi le d fo r Ch av ez was th e o ne th atCh av ez

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Allen v. Siebe rt, 552 U.S. 3, 128 S.Ct . 2 (2007); Ar tuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct . 361 (2000); see also Hurley v. Moore, 233 F .3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (holdingthat the def

endant’ s motion was not properly filed whe re it did not comply with the written oath re quirement of F la. R. Crim. P . 3.850). 15refu se d t o s ig n, wh ic h was fil edun swo rnonJu ly 19, 2 00 4.

Inad di ti on to th os e al le ga ti on s ab ou t Li pi ns ki ’s rep res en ta ti on , Cha ve z’s habe as pe ti ti on co nt ai ns th e fo ll owi ng all eg at io ns ab ou t Weis se nb orn’s rep res en ta ti on . W ei ss enbo rnm etwit h C ha ve z o nc e. He so ug htan d re cei ve d fr om th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t wo ex te ns io ns of t im e to fil e a m ot io n wi th th e tr ia l
co urt fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 1. Tho se ex te ns io ns res ul te d i n afin al fil in g d ead li ne of M ay 2, 2 00 5. Weis se nb orn
m is se d t ha t d ead li ne , bu t b y on ly thre e d ay s, fi li ng a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in th e st at e tr ia l co urt o n M ay 5, 2 00 5. (Nei th er p art y

su gg es ts th at W ei ss enbo rn ’s m is si ng th e d ead li ne by thre e d ay s h adan y de tri m en ta l ef

fecton Ch av ez.) Lik e th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n t ha t Li pi ns ki ha d fi le d, t he on e W ei ss enbo rnfil edals o was “ no t u nd er o at h o r si gn edby Mr. Cha ve z.” Ch av ez’s habe as pe ti ti on ex pl ai ns , ho wev er, t ha t “ Mr. Weis se nb orn d idsubs eque nt ly hav e Mr. Ch av ez s ig n aha nd -wri tt en oa th to be att ach edto th e m ot io n,” bu t i t n ot es

“ th atoa th do es no t ap pe ar i n t he co urt fi le , no r is itfil e-s ta m pe d.” Fo r ou r pu rp os es , th ou gh , we wil l as su m e th is m ot io n was pro pe rly fil ed . (In t he res po ns e th atth e St at e fi le d t o C ha ve z’s May 5, 20 05 po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n, i t d idno t

16as se rt, n ordi d t he st at e tr ia l co urt fi nd , th atth e m ot io n was no t p ro pe rly sworn. ) 9 The habe as pe ti ti on als o a ll eg es th atth e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n Weis se nb orn fi le d

“ ad op te d s om e o f th e arg um en ts rai se d b y Mr. Lip in sk i t o wh ic h M r. Ch av ez h ad
or ig in al ly objec te d,” an d t ha t Ch av ez “ wro te to Mr. Weis se nb orn c om pl ai ni ng of th e sa m e.” On No ve m

be r 8, 2 00 5, s ix m on th s af te r he ha d fi le d t he po st -co nv ic ti on
m ot io n i n t he st at e tr ia l co urt o n C ha ve z’s be ha lf, Weis se nb orn fi le d am ot io n fo r le av e to wit hd raw fro m

th e cas e. The tri al co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n o n Dec em be r 13 , 20 05 , exp la in in g t ha t Weis se nb orn h adask edto wit hd raw b ecau se he ha d

“ irr eco nc il ab le an d i rrep arab le di ffer en ces ” wit h C ha ve z’s tr ia l co un se l, wh o h e ha d h op edwou ldbe th e p rimary wit ne ss tes ti fy in g o n C ha ve z’s be ha lf a t the
ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in g. Th e h ab eas pe ti ti on al le ge s t ha t t he co urt al so ex pr es se d c on cern , bas edonco nv ers at io ns th at W ei ss enbo rn ’s wife h adwith a tt orne y s fo r th e St at e, th at“ W ei ss enbo rn ’s ph y si cal he al th co ul d b e aff

ect edby thi s ca se .” And rea No rg ardwas the th irdan d fi na l at to rn ey ap po in te d t o re pr es en t Ch av ez i n the st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in g. Th e h ab eas pe ti ti on all eg es th at

In its brief to us, the State conc edes that it has an oath “pur portedly signe d by

Chavez 9 and date d May

2, 2005 and date stamped filed, on Ma y 27, 2005 in the Assistant Attorney Gene ral’s f

ile.” B r. of Responde nts at 28 n.6. 17Nor ga rd“ en co un te redco ns id erab le di ffi cu lt y ob ta in in g t he reco rdfro m pre vi ou s
co un se l,” t ha t s he ob ta in ed“ m os t o f th e rec or d” inJu ne 20 06 , andth atsh e fi le d a n
am en de d m ot io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef o n Oct ob er 4 , 20 06
. 1 0 Fo ll owi ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng onCh av ez’s cl ai m s, the st at e tr ia l co urt de ni edhi s amend edm ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f on Marc h 8 , 20 07 . He ap pe al edth atde ni al to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Tha t co urt af firm edth e d en ia l
an d a ls o d en ie d arel at edpe ti ti on forst at e h ab eas co rp us rel ie f on Ju ne 25 , 20 09 , an d i ss ue d i ts m an da te on Ju ly 21, 2 00 9. VI. W e tu rnno w to th e d eci si on s o f th is Co urt an d t he Supr em e Co urt tha t d eal wit h t he cir cu m st an ces in whi ch th e o ne -y ear AEDPA s ta tu te of l im it at io ns setou t in 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) m ay be subjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. The Supr em e Co urt d eal t wi th th e is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e AEDPA st atut e o f li m it at io ns in Lawren ce v . Flo rid a, 54 9 U.S. 3 27 , 12 7 S .Ct. 1 07 9 (2 00 7)
. Tha t ca se in vo lv ed§ 2 24 4( d) (2 ), whi ch pro vi de s t ha t fo r st atut e o f li m it at io ns pu rp os es th e ti m e in “ whi ch a pr op erl y fil edap pl ic at io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n

Chavez’s habe as petition actua lly alleg es this post-conviction motion was filed on 1 0 “Oc tober 24, 2006,” but that date would appe ar to be a ty pog raphic al er

ror. Tha t post-conviction motion was a par

t of the re cord that was bef ore the district court, and it is stamped with a file date of October 4, 2006. At any

rate , whether

the motion was filed on Oc tober 4, 2006 or twe nty day s later doe s not affe ct the outcome of this case. 18orot he r co ll at eral rev ie w . . . is pe nd in g” is no t co un te d. Se e Lawren ce, 5 49 U.S.

at33 1, 1 27 S.Ct . at 1 08 2. Th e que st io n i n the cas e was whet he r th atst atut ory to ll in g p ro vi si on ap pl ie s t o t he pe rio d i n wh ic h ape ti ti on forcert io rari to rev ie w th e d en ia l o f st at e co ll at eral rel ie f is be fo re t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. Id
. at33 1– 36 , 12 7 S .Ct. at10 82 –8 5. Th e an swe r th e Co urt g av e was “ no .” Id
. The n t he Co urt ad dr es se d t he pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t t ha t ev en if h e was no t
en ti tl edto th e st atut ory

to ll in g p ro vi de d b y

§ 2 24 4( d) (2 ), he was e nt it le d t o equi tabl e to ll in g fo r th e p eri odin whi ch he was s eek in g c ert io rari rev ie w of t he st at e co ll at eral co urt’s d eci si on . Id. at33 6– 37 , 12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 –8 6. Th e Co urt reject edth atarg um en t, t oo . In d oi ng so , itin it ia ll y ob se rv edth at“ [t]o b e en ti tl ed to equi tabl e to ll in g, [ape ti ti on er] m us t s ho w ‘ (1 ) th athe ha s b een pu rs ui ng hi s rig ht s d il ig en tl y , and(2) th atso m e ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ce s to odinhi s way’
an d p rev en te d t im el y

fil in g.” Id. at33 6, 1 27 S.Ct . at 1 08 5 (quo ti ng Pace v. DiGu gl ie lm o, 5 44 U.S. 40 8, 4 18 , 12 5 S .Ct. 1 80 7, 1 81 4 (2 00 5) ). Am on g t he reas on s t he pe ti ti on er i n Lawre nc e o ffer edto jus ti fy equi tabl e to ll in g was “ hi s co un se l’s m is ta ke in m is cal cu la ti ng th e li m it at io ns pe rio d.” Id., 12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 . The Co urt re jecte d t ha t re as on as ajus ti fic at io n fo r equi tabl e to ll in g: If cred it e d, th is arg um en t wou ld es se nt ia ll y equi tabl y to ll li m it at io ns 19pe rio ds fo r ev ery pe rs on who se at to rn ey m is se d a d e a d li ne . Att orne y

m is cal cu la ti on is si m

p l y no t su ffi ci en t to warra nt equi tabl e to ll in g, pa rti cu la rly in th e po st co nv ic ti on c o n t e x t whe re pr is on ers ha ve no co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto co un se l. Id . at 3 36 –3 7, 1 27 S.Ct . at 1 08 5; cf. Irwi n v . Dep’t o f Vet eran s Aff ai rs , 49 8 U.S. 89 , 96 , 11 1 S .Ct. 4 53 , 45 8 (1 99 0) (“ Pet it io ne r ur ge s t ha t h is fai lu re t o fi le ina ti m el y m an ne r sh ou ldbe ex cu se d b ecau se hi s l awy er was ab se ntfro m hi s o ffi ce at th e ti m e th atth e EEOC no ti ce was rece iv ed , andth athe th erea fte r fi le d wi th in 30 da y s o f th e d ay

on whi ch he pe rs on al ly recei ve d n ot ic e. Bu t t he pri nc ip le s o f equi tabl e to ll in g d es cri be d abo ve do no t ex te ndto whatis at b es t a g ard en varie ty cl ai m of e xc us ab le ne gl ect .”); bu t s ee Ho ll an d v . Flo rid a, __ _ U.S. _

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. 25 49 , 25 68 (20 10 ) (Ali to , J., co nc urrin g) (st at in g t ha t i n acas e whe re t he re were
ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces be y on d t he pe ti ti on er’s co nt ro l, “ [c]omm on sen se di ct at es th ata li ti ga ntcan no t b e co ns tru ct iv el y res po ns ib le forth e co nduc t o f an at to rn ey who is no t o pe rat in g a s h is ag en t i n any m ean in gf ul sen se of t he word .”). Thre e y ears lat er, t he Supr em e Co urt re tu rn edto th e is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e § 22 44 (d ) li m it at io ns pe rio d i n Ho ll an d v . Flo rid a, __ _ U.S. _

__ , 13 0 S.Ct . 25 49 (20 10 ), whi ch in vo lv edFlo rid a d eat h ro w in m at e Alb ertHol la nd . Id. at25 54 –5 5. Th irt y -s ev enda y s af te r Hol land ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e h ad be co m e fi na l an d t he on e-year AEDPA sta tu te of l im it at io ns ha d b eg un to run ,

20Brad le y

Co ll in s was ap po in te d t o b e h is po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l. Id . at 2 55 5. Co ll in s wai te d 3 16 day s b efo re fi li ng a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in st at e
co urt, wh ic h l efton ly 12 d ay s o f un sp en t l im it at io ns pe rio d. Id .; s ee al so 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ) & (2 ). The s ta te tri al co urt d en ie d re li ef ab ou t a year la te r an d a ti m el y ap pe al was fi le d. Ho ll an d, 1 30 S.Ctat 2 55 5. Dur in g t he two y ears th atth e ap pe al of t he st at e tr ia l co urt d eci si on was pe nd in g b efo re t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, co m m un ic at io ns be twee n Ho ll an d a nd Co ll in s co m

pl et el y bro ke do wn. Id . Hol la ndwrot e n um ero us let te rs to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt an d i ts cle rk ’s off ic e req ue st in g t ha t Co ll in s b e rem ov ed , bu t al l o f hi s re qu es ts were d en ie d. Id . at 2 55 5– 56 . He wrot e fre qu en tl y to Co ll in s as well , st res si ng th e im

po rta nc e o f pr om

pt ly fili ng a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on if a ndwhen th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e d en ia l o f hi s s ta te m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Id. at25 56 –5 7. Al l o f th os e le tt ers wentun an swe red . Id. Co ll in s d idno t ev en co nt actHol la ndwhen th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f rel ie f an d i ss ue d the m an da te in hi s ca se ; Ho ll an d d is co ve red th os e fac ts on ly as a res ul t o f hi s o wn re se arch inth e p ris on li br ary week s af te r th e
m an da te ha d i ss ue d. Id . The v ery ne xtda y aft er h e m ad e th atdi sc ov ery, Hol la nd dr aft edhi s o wn fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on an d m ai le d i t t o the di st ric t co urt, b utby th atpo in t t he on e-year st atut e o f li m it at io ns ha d a lre ady run—the de ad li ne pa ss ed
21ab ou t fi ve week s b efo re Ho ll an d’s p ro se p et it io n was fil ed . Id. at25 57
.

The co m m un ic at io ns be twee n Ho ll an d andCo ll in s t ha t fo ll owe d t he fil in g of th e p ro se p et it io n i nd ic at edth atHol la nd , th e d eat h ro w in m at e, kn ew m or e ab ou t the law ap pl y in g AEDPA’s st atut e o f li m it at io ns th an Co ll in s, h is lawyer, di d. Id . at 2 55 7– 58 . Abo uttwo m on th s af te r he fil edhi s p ro se p et it io n, Ho ll an d fil eda pr o s e m ot io n i n fe de ral di stric t co urt as ki ng th atCo ll in s b e rem ov ed . Id. at 25 59 ; Ho ll an d v . Flo rid a, 53 9 F .3d13 34 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), rev ’d, 13 0 S .Ct. 25 49 (20 10 ). The d is tri ctco urt u lt im at el y gra nt edth atm ot io n, ap po in te d n ew
co un se l, an d re qu es te d b rie fin g “ on whet he r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e jus ti fie d th e equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e AEDPA li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r a s uf fic ie ntpe rio d o f ti m e (ap pr ox im at el y

fiv e week s) to m ak e Hol la nd ’s pet it io n t im el y .” Hol la nd , 13 0 S.Ct . at 2 55 9. Aft er co ns id eri ng th os e b rie fs , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atth e fact s d idno t warran t eq ui tabl e to ll in g b ecau se Hol la ndha d n otso ug htth e co urt syste m ’s hel p i n l earn in g t he da te th atth e m an da te ha d i ss ue d i n t he de ni al of h is st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on , no r ha d h e so ug hthe lp fro m an y “ ‘out si de supp orte rs .’ ” Id
. As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt re as on ed , Hol landha d n ot“ ‘dem on strat e[d ]’ th e ‘du e di li ge nc e’ nece ss ary” for eq ui tabl e to ll in g a ndhi s p et it io n was th eref or e ti m eba rredun de r § 2 24 4( d) . Id. Thi s C ou rt a ffi rm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on , bu t o n d iff eren t g ro un ds
. 22W e co nc lu de d tha t Ho ll an d’s ca se pre se nt edno th in g m or e th an “ [p ]ure

pr of es si on al ne gl ig en ce,” wh ic h c ou ldne ve r ri se to th e le ve l o f “ ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces ” th atwou ldjus ti fy equi tabl e to ll in g. Ho ll an d, 5 39 F.3dat 1 33 9. W e ex pl ai ne d t he st an da rdwe were ap pl y in g: [I]n ou r vi ew, no al le ga ti on of la wy er ne gl ig en ce or of fai lu re to m eet a la wy er’s st an da rd of care —i n th e ab se nc e of an al le ga ti on an d pr oo f of ba d fai th , di sh on es ty, di vi de d lo y al ty, m en ta l im pa irment or so fo rth on th e la wy er’s pa rt— can ris e to th e le ve l of eg reg io us at to rn ey m is co nduc t th at wou ld en ti tl e Pet it io ne r to equi tabl e to ll in g. Pu re pr of es si on al ne gl ig en ce i s n oten ou gh
. Id
. The Supr em e Co urt g ran te d c ert io rari an d i ss ue d i ts de ci si on di sa gr eei ng wit h o ur st an da rdab ou t wh en equi tabl e to ll in g s ho ul d app ly bas edon a la wy er’s act io ns or i na ct io ns . The Co urt fi rs t re -em ph as iz ed : “ W e h av e p rev io us ly m ad e cl ear t ha t a ‘pe ti ti on er’ is ‘ en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g’ on ly if he sh ows ‘ (1 ) th at he ha s b een pu rs ui ng hi s ri gh ts di li ge nt ly, an d (2 ) th atso m e ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ce s to odinhi s way’ an d p rev en te d t im el y fil in g.” Hol la nd , 13 0 S .Ct. at 25 62 (qu ot in g P ace, 5 44 U.S. at 4 18 , 12 5 S .Ct. at18 14 ). The C ou rt a ls o
reco gn iz edth atin pre vi ou s ca se s i t h adhe ldth at“ ‘a gard en varie ty clai m of
ex cu sabl e n eg le ct ,’ su chas asi m pl e ‘m is cal cu la ti on ’ th atlea ds a la wy er t o m is s a fil in g d ead li ne , do es no t warran t eq ui tabl e to ll in g.” Id. at25 64 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

23(quo ti ng Irwin , 49 8 U.S. at96 , 11 1 S .Ct. at45 8, an d Lawre nc e, 54 9 U.S. at33 6,

12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 ). The C ou rt r eas on ed , ho wev er, tha t t he fact s o f Hol la nddi d n ot in vo lv e a “ ‘gard en va rie ty clai m ’ of att orne y ne gl ig en ce,” b utin st ead“ far m or e
se rio us in st an ces of a tt orne y m is co nduc t.” Id
. The Co urt re co un te d t he va rio us fai lu res on th e p artof C ol li ns , as wel l as Hol land ’s own“ reas on ab le di li ge nc e” i n p ur su in g h is cla im s. Id . at 2 56 4– 65 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Anditsu m m ari zedth e at to rn ey ’s m is co nduc t i n l ig ht of hi s cl ie nt ’s rep eat eden tre at ie s: To be su re, Co ll in s fai le d to fil e Hol la nd ’s pe ti ti on on ti m e an d ap pe ars to ha ve be en un aware of th e da te on w h ic h th e li m it at io ns pe rio d ex pi red —t wo fact s th at , alo ne , m ig htsu gg es t s im pl e n eg li ge nc e. Bu t, in th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e reco rd fact s we ha ve el uc id at ed su gg es t th at th e f a i l ur e am ou nt ed to m or e: Here, Co ll in s fai le d to fil e Hol la nd ’s fed eral pe ti ti o n on ti m e de sp it e Hol land ’s m an y le tt ers th at rep eat ed ly em ph as iz ed th e im

po rta nc e of hi s do in g so . Co ll in s ap pa ren tl y di d no t d o t h e r es earc h ne ces sa ry to fin d ou t th e pr op er fil in g da te , de sp it e Hol la nd ’s le tt ers th at wen t so far as to id en ti fy th e ap pl ic ab le le ga l ru le s. Co ll in s fai le d to in fo rm Hol la nd in a ti m el y m an ne r ab ou t th e cru ci al fact th at th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ha d de ci de d hi s cas e, ag ai n de sp it e Hol la nd ’s m an y pl eas fo r th at in fo rm at io n. A n d C o l li ns fai le d to co m m un ic at e wit h hi s cl ie nt ov er a pe rio d of y ears , de sp it e va rio us pl eas fro m Hol la ndth atCo ll in s re sp on d t o h is let te rs . Id . at 2 56 4 (e m

ph as is ad de d)
. The Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atitwas n otst at in g i ts co nc lu si on “ in ab so lu te fo rm ” an d p oi nt edou t t ha t “ m or e p ro ceed in gs m ay be ne ces sa ry ,” bu t d idst at e,

24“ W e th in k t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s co nc lu si on was i nc orrect .” Id . at 2 56 5. “ The

di li ge nc e req ui redforequi tabl e to ll in g p ur po se s i s re as on ab le di li ge nc e,” t he Co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ no t m ax im um feas ib le di li ge nc e.” Id . at 2 56 5 (quo ta ti on m ark s
an d c it at io ns om it te d) . As fo r ho w Hol la ndha d s ho wn re as on ab le di li ge nc e, th e Co urt re co un te d t ha t h e:
no t on ly wro te hi s at to rn ey nu m ero us le tt ers se ek in g cru ci al in fo rm at io n an d pr ov id in g di rect io n; he al so rep eat ed ly co nt act ed th e st at e c o u rts , th ei r cl erk s, a n d t h e F lo rid a St at e Bar Ass oc ia ti on in an effo rt to ha ve Co ll in s—th e cen tra l im pe di men t t o th e pu rs ui t of hi s le ga l rem edy —re m ov ed fro m hi s cas e. And , th e ve ry da y th a t H ol la nd di sc ov eredth athi s AEDPA cl oc k had ex pi red du e to Co ll in s’ fai li ng s, Hol la nd pr ep ared hi s own habe as pe ti ti on pr o se an d pr om pt ly fil ed it wit h t he Dis tri ctCo urt. Id
. Co nc lu di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt h ad“ erro ne ou sl y rel ie d” on Hol la nd ’s
supp os edlac k o f di li ge nc e, whe n h e h adactua ll y be enqu it e d il ig en t, an d t ha t t hi s Co urt h ad“ erro ne ou sl y

rel ie d o n a n o ve rly rig idpe r se ap pr oa ch ,” th e Supr em e Co urt re m an de d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs to de te rm in e whe th er Ho ll an d ha d e st ab li sh edth athe was e nt it le d t o e qu it ab le to ll in g o r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng
on th atis su e. Id
. Less th an a y ear a fte r th e Hol landde ci si on , th is Co urt d eci de d S an Mart in v. McNe il , 63 3 F .3d12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), in whi ch we rev ie wedth e d is tri ctco urt’s

25ru li ng th atth e p et it io ne r, San Mart in , hadno t ac te d u nd er ex tra or di na ry

ci rcu m st an ces or wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e. Id . at 1 26 9. San M art in ha d at te m pt edto gro un d h is cla im

to equi tabl e to ll in g p rimaril y on two al le ga ti on s—th e two -weekde la y in hi s re cei vi ng no ti ce o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s
or de r de nyin g c ert io rari an d t he ad di ti on al de la y of n earl y fou r m on th s i n ap po in tm en t o f po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l. Id. at12 68 . W e reject edhi s co nt en ti on 1 1 th atth os e al le ge d fa ct s amoun te d t o e xt rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces th atha d pr ev en te d h im

fro m ti m el y fil in g h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . Id. at12 69 . W e po in te d o ut : San Marti n ha s no t be gu n to ex pl ai n ho w th e two -week de la y in rece iv in g no ti ce of th e Supr em e Co urt’s de ni al of hi s cert io rari pe ti ti on ul ti m at el y cau se d th e la te fil in g of hi s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on ; or why he d i d n o t ha ve am

pl e ti m e, ev en aft er th e two -week de la y , in whi ch h e co ul d ha ve pr es en te d a ti m el y fed era l p e t i t i o n . . . . To th e ex te nt he is arg ui ng th at he co ul d no t ha ve fil ed hi s st at e or fed eral po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns un ti l he ob ta in ed a la wy er, hi s la wy er was ap po in te d on Feb ru ary 11 , 19 99 , whi ch m ean s th at he st il l wait ed 23 5 da y s aft er ha vi ng be en ap po in te d a la w y er be fo re fil in g hi s to ll in g st at e po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n. Id . at 1 27 0– 71 (fo ot no te om it te d)
. Inad di ti on to de te rm in in g t ha t t ho se all eg edfact s di d n otam ou ntto th e
The Supreme Court had denied c ertiora ri revie w in San Martin’s dire ct appe al on 1 1 October 5, 1998, but he alleg ed that he w as not notified of that fa ct until October 19, 1998, a nd that post-conviction counse l was not appointed until Fe bruar y 11, 1999. San Martin, 633 F.3d at 1261, 1263. 26“ ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces ” th atHol la ndrequi res , id . at 1 27 1, we al so de te rm in edth atSan Mart in ha d “ fai le d t o m ak e an y sh owi ng s o f ‘reaso nabl e di li ge nc e,’” whic h Ho ll an d a ls o re qu ire s, i d. at12 70 ; s ee al so Hol la nd , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 62 (st at in g t ha t t he pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w th athe ha d “ be en pu rs ui ng hi s ri gh ts di li ge nt ly”). In s um , we exp la in ed : “ ‘In th e ab se nc e o f an y sh owi ng of h is own di li ge nc e [o r ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces ], [San Mart in ] can no t b e en ti tl edto th e
rare an d e xt rao rd in ary rem edy of e qu it ab le to ll in g.’” San Mart in , 63 3 F .3dat 12 71 (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Dre w, 29 7 F .3dat 1 28 9)
. W it h re sp ectto San Mart in ’s reque stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng , we hel d th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adno t ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g o ne , bec au se : San Marti n ha s no t al le ge d th at he pr oc eed ed di li ge nt ly in at te m pt in g to l e a rn of th e Supr em e Co urt’s di sp os it io n of hi s ap pe al , or th at h e pr oc eed eddi li ge nt ly upo n l earn in g of th e or de r. Nor ha s he m ad e an y sh owi ng th at th e two -week de la y in no ti ce was an e xt rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ce th at in an y way pr ev en te d or im pe de d th e ti m el y fil in g of hi s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . In fact , San Marti n ha s ne ve r subm it te d an y ki nd of affi da vi t—to th is Co urt or th e di st ric t co urt—with an y st at em en ts co nc ern in g th e ti m el in es s of hi s pe ti ti on , hi s di li ge nc e, or th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng hi s st at e co urt an d f e d eral co urt fil in gs , le t al on e an y ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ce th at m ay ha ve im pe de d hi m fro m ti m el y fil in g h is fed eral pe ti ti on . Id . at 1 27 2. In ot he r wor ds , SanMart in was n oten ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se th e fac ts he all eg ed , when tak en as t ru e, di d n otsh ow ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces pre ve nt in g t he ti m el y fil in g o f hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on an d d idno t s ho w 27th athe ha d a ct edwit h re as on ab le di li ge nc e in att em pt in g t o g etitfil ed
. VII. Now we ap pl y

th e la w setou t i n the Hol landan d S an Mart in de ci si on s t o th e fac ts all eg edin Ch av ez’s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on to de te rm in e if th e d is tri ct
co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h im anev id en ti ary he ari ng to pro ve th os e fact s. Th e que st io n i s wh et he r th e al le ge d fa ct s, wh entak en as t ru e, sh ow b ot h
ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces an d re as on ab le di li ge nc e en ti tl in g C ha ve z to en ou gh equi tabl e to ll in g t o p rev en t h is pe ti ti on fro m be in g t im e-b arre d u nd er § 22 44 (d ). If s o, h e g et s an ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d t he ch an ce t o p ro ve th atth os e fac tu al al le ga ti on s ar e true . If no t, t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s p et it io n o n s ta tu te of li m it at io ns gro un ds witho utanev id en ti ary he ari ng is du e to be affi rm ed
. As we h av e ex pl ai ne d i n s om e d et ai l ea rli er i n t hi s o pi ni on , eve n a fte r gi vi ng hi m

ful l cr ed itun de r § 2 24 4( d) (2 ) fo r st atut ory to ll in g dur in g a ll of t he ti m e th athi s m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f was pe nd in g i n s ta te co urt, Ch av ez fi le d hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on 52 0 d ay s af te r th e o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d i m po se d by § 22 44 (d ) ha d ru n. Se e supr a Part V. B. He ne ed s t ha t m an y da y s o f equi tabl e to ll in g. The cle ares t p at h t hr ou gh th is is su e is on e th atfol lo ws t he lap se of n on st atut or il y

to ll edti m e th atoc cu rredwhi le each of the th ree p os t-c on vi ct io n 28at to rn ey s (a ndan y of the ir c o- co un se l) we re re pr es en ti ng Ch av ez: Lip in sk i, W ei ss enbo rn , andNorg ard . The d is tri ctco urt s im pl ifi edm at te rs by ass um in g, as Ch av ez co nt en ds an d the Sta te di sp ut es , th atth e en ti re t im e Lip in sk i was rep res en ti ng Ch av ez s ho ul d b e equi tabl y to ll ed(no ne of t ha t t im e was st atut or il y to ll edbe cau se th e m ot io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef was no t fi le d u nt il aft er Lip in sk i was rem ov edfro m th e cas e). Tha t i s a g en ero us ass um pt io n, b utforth e
sa ke of s im

pl ic it y an d b ecau se itdo es no t al te r th e res ul t, we wi ll als o i ndul ge it
. Bu t s ub tra ct in g e ve ry

on e o f th e 4 29 da y s t ha t ra n dur in g Li pi ns ki ’s rep res en ta ti on fro m

th e 5 20 da y s o f la te ne ss st il l l eav es Ch av ez 9 1 d ay s s ho rt o f 1 2 th e am ou ntof e qu it ab le to ll in g t ha t h e n eed s. He d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t h e is
en ti tl edto an y

equi tabl e to ll in g fo r th e p eri oddu rin g wh ic h No rg ardwas rep res en ti ng hi m . Thatm ean s C ha ve z m us t g etall 91 da y s o f to ll in g t ha t h e n eed s fro m th e p eri odin whi ch W ei ss enbo rnwas re pr es en ti ng hi m . The habe as pe ti ti on co nt ai ns on ly fou r al le ga ti on s ab ou t wh athapp en ed du rin g t he pe rio d i n wh ic h Weis se nb orn was servi ng as C ha ve z’s co un se l. The fir stall eg at io n i s tha t Weis se nb orn m etwith C ha ve z o nl y on ce. Tha t i s n otan
Her e is how we calc ulate that duringL ipinski’s repre sentation 429 day s lapsed that we re 1 2 not statutorily

tolled: The AEDPA cloc k beg an to run duringL ipinski’s repre sentation only afte r the United States Supreme Court de nied Chavez’s petition for wr it of cer tiorari on dire ct appe al on J une 23, 2003. See 28 U .S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A ). Not countingJ une 23, 2003, itself, see Fe d. R. Civ. P . 6(a) , and bea

ringin mind that the y ear 2004 was a

leap year , 429 day s passed be tween J une 24, 2003 and August 25, 2004, when the state tr ial court re moved L ipinski. 29al le ga ti on of a“ se rio us in st an ce[] of a tt orne y m is co nduc t” th atth e Supr em e Co urt sp ok e o f in Hol la nd . See 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 4. An d t he re i s n o app aren t co nn ect io n be twee n the nu m

be r of ti m es anatt orne y

m eet s wi th hi s cl ie ntan d t he sp eedwit h whi chth e at to rn ey

fil es co urt m ot io ns an d p le ad in gs . The habe as pe ti ti on ’s sec on d a ll eg at io n abo utW ei ss enbo rnis th athe so ug ht
an d re cei ve d t wo ex te ns io ns of t im e to fil e a s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n. Se e Howel l v . Cro sb y , 41 5 F .3d12 50 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (req ue st s fo r ex te ns io ns of ti m e to fil e m ot io ns forst at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef, an d e ve n e xt en si on s th em se lv es , do no t t ol l AEDPA’s st atut e o f li m it at io ns ). Bu t t ha t al le ga ti on is si m pl y an ot he r way

of s ay in g t ha t t he m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f was no t fil edinst at e co urt s oo n e no ug h t o p erm itth e fed eral habe as pe ti ti on to be fil edon ti m e. Say in g t ha t d oe s n o m or e to est ab li sh ser io us att orne y m is co nduc t o f th e ki ndHol la ndrequi res th an th e si m pl e st at em en t t ha t co un se l d idno t fi le pro m pt ly
en ou gh . See Irwi n, 4 98 U.S. at 9 6, 1 11 S.Ct . at 4 58 (equi tabl e to ll in g d oe s n ot
ex te ndto “ a g ard en varie ty clai m ” o f ne gl ect ); c f. Lawren ce, 5 49 U.S. at 3 36 –3 7, 12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 (“ Att orne y m is cal cu la ti on is si m

pl y no t s uf fic ie ntto warran t equi tabl e to ll in g, p art ic ul arl y in th e p os tc on vi ct io n c on te xtwher e p ris on ers ha ve
no co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto co un se l.”) . It g oe s wi th ou t s ay in g t ha t Weis se nb orn d id
no t p ro ceedpro m

pt ly eno ug h. If h e h ad , th ere wo ul d b e n o s ta tu te of l im it at io ns 30pr ob le m

to be gi n wi th an d we wo ul d n otbe tal ki ng ab ou t wh et he r th ere wer e th e ki ndof e xt rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces an d s eri ou s at to rn ey m is co nduc t tha t warran ts equi tabl e to ll in g. In vi rtu al ly every case wher e th e is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g
co m es up on e o r m or e at to rn ey s s ho ul d h av e act edwit h m or e d is pa tc h, b utm or e th an th atis requi red
. The habe as pe ti ti on ’s th irdall eg at io n abo utW ei ss enbo rnis th atth e Ma y 5, 20 05 st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n m ay no t h av e b een pro pe rly fil ed , des pi te th e factth atth e p et it io n s ta te s t ha t Ch av ez d id“ si gn a ha nd -wri tt enoa th to be at ta ch edto th atm ot io n.” The al le ga ti on th atth e m ot io n m ay no t h av e b een pr op erl y fil eddo es no t af

fectth e st atut ory

to ll in g o r th e o ut co m e in th is cas e b as ed
on th e p os it io ns th atth e p art ie s h av e ta ke n a ndth e as su m pt io ns th atwe ha ve
m ad e. See s up ra at16 –1 7. Non e o f th e th ree a ll eg at io ns in th e h ab eas pe ti ti on ab ou t wh atW ei ss enbo rn di d a ndfai le d t o d o c om es clo se to th e se rio us att orne y m is co nduc t t ha t was pr es en t i n Ho ll an d. Se e 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 4. In st ead , th ey are atm os t al le ga ti on s o f ga rd en varie ty neg li ge nc e o r ne gl ect . Ind eed , th e h ab eas pe ti ti on it se lf p le ad s an d
co nc ed es th at“ W ei ss enbo rndi d n oten ga ge in eg reg io us be ha vi or .” The re i s n o
reas on th atwe sh ou ldno t t ak e Ch av ez athi s wo rdab ou t tha t. The habe as pe ti ti on ’s fou rth an d fi na l al le ga ti on ab ou t Weis se nb orn i s t ha t,
31whe n i t g ran te d h is m ot io n t o wi th dr aw fro m th e cas e, th e st at e tr ia l co urt
ex pr es se d c on cern s ab ou t t he effe ctth e cas e m ig htha ve on W ei ss enbo rn ’s hea lt h were h e to co nt in ue rep res en ti ng Ch av ez. See supr a at17 . There are, h owe ve r,
no all eg at io ns at a ll th atW ei ss enbo rn ’s hea lt h h adaffe ct edhi s ab il it y to hand le th e cas e up t o the ti m e h e withd rew o r th atitha d p rev en te d h im fro m fil in g t he
m ot io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef s oo ne r. The al le ga ti on is on ly tha t t he st at e tri al co urt was co nc ern edab ou t h ow h is he al th m ig htbe affe ct edinth e fu tu re were he to co nt in ue rep res en ti ng Ch av ez. Andth os e h eal th co nc ern s ar e al le ge d t o ha ve be en m en ti on edon ly on t he da y th e co urt g ran te d the m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, Decem be r 13 , 20 05 , whi ch was s ev en m on th s af te r W ei ss enbo rnha d fi le d the May 5, 2 00 5 m ot io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef. Noton ly tha t, b utth e h ab eas pe ti ti on als o a ll eg es th atth e actua l re as on W ei ss enbo rnm ov edto wit hd raw, an d th e rea so n h e was pe rm it te d t o d o s o, was th ata co nf li ctha d d ev el op edbe twee n hi m an d t he ch ie f wit ne ss who wou ldbe tes ti fy in g fo r Ch av ez i n a ny po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs . Noton ly didth e h ab eas pe ti ti on fai l t o a ll eg e th e k in d o f ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces an d s eri ou s at to rn ey m is co nduc t b y

W ei ss enbo rnth atis requi redfor equi tabl e to ll in g, i t al so fai le d t o a ll eg e th atCh av ez ac te d wi th di li ge nc e in pu rs ui ng hi s ri gh ts du rin g t ha t p eri od , whi ch is an ot he r req ui rem en t fo r equi tabl e 32to ll in g. Se e Hol la nd , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 62 ; ac co rdSan Mart in , 63 3 F .3dat 1 26 7. In

fact , th e p et it io n c on ta in s n o a ll eg at io ns th atCh av ez m ad e an y att em ptto pre se rv e hi s ri gh ts be twee n Au gu st25 , 20 04 , when W ei ss enbo rnto okth e cas e, an d t he ti m e th atW ei ss enbo rn ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw was gra nt edon Decem be r 13 , 20 05
. It

1 3
co nt ai ns no all eg at io n t ha t Ch av ez ev er u rg edW ei ss enbo rnto fil e a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, orto do so m or e qui ck ly, orth atCh av ez ev er at te m pt edto
co nt actth e st at e co urt ab ou t h is cas e dur in g t ha t t im e, orth athe ev er at te m pt edto ha ve W ei ss enbo rnrem ov ed . Cf. Hol la nd , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 65 (By co nt ras t,

“ Hol la ndno t o nl y

wrot e h is att orne y

nu m ero us let te rs see ki ng cru ci al in fo rm at io n
an d p ro vi di ng di rect io n; he als o re pe at ed ly con ta ct edth e st at e co urts , th ei r cl erk s,
an d t he Flo rid a St at e BarAss oc ia ti on in aneffo rt t o h av e Co ll in s—th e cen tra l im pe di m en t t o t he pu rs ui t o f hi s l eg al rem edy —re m ov edfro m

hi s ca se .”). Ther e is no all eg at io n t ha t s ho ws Ch av ez was di li ge nt ly pur su in g h is rig ht s dur in g t he ti m e Weiss enbo rnrep res en te d h im . Cf. id . (By co nt ras t, “ The ve ry

da y th at Hol landdi sc ov eredth athi s AEDPA cl oc k h adex pi reddu e to Co ll in s’ fai li ng s,

The ha beas pe tition does alleg e that Chave z wrote Weissenborn to complain about some 1 3 of the a rguments that were made in the Ma y 5, 2005 motion for post-conviction re lief. The petition does not alleg e exactly when Chave z wrote Weissenborn, and Chave z has not argued that this alleg ation shows he wa s pursuinghis claims with dili g ence . It appea rs, instead, to show that he wa s disag ree ing w ith his counsel about those claims and the a rguments supporting the m. In any event, we have a ssumed that once the state post-convic tion moti on was filed, statutory tolling under

§ 2244(d)( 2) kicke d in. See supra a t 11. 33Hol landpre pa redhi s o wn h ab eas pe ti ti on pro se a ndpro m pt ly file d i t wi th th e Dis tri ctCo urt.); cf. al so id . at 2 55 9 (r eco un ti ng Hol la nd ’s var io us effo rts to ha ve hi s at to rn ey

rem ov ed , in cl ud in g t he pro se m ot io n h e fi le d wi th th e d is tri ctco urt). Thu s, ev en if we wer e to ass um e th atth e al le ga ti on s i n t he habe as pe ti ti on ab ou t Weis se nb orn’s ac ti on s o r th e al le ga ti on ab ou t t he th reatto hi s fu tu re h eal th
so m eh ow am ou nt edto ser io us att orne y m is co nduc t o r ot he rwis e ro se to th e le ve l of ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces th atpre ve nt edth e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n fro m be in g fi le d b et ween Aug us t 2 5, 2 00 4, an d M ay 5, 2 00 5, eq ui tabl e to ll in g
wou ldst il l n otbe warran te d b ecau se th ere i s n o a ll eg at io n t ha t Ch av ez ac te d wi th
reas on ab le di li ge nc e dur in g t ha t t im e. As t he Supr em e Co urt h el d i n t he Pace de ci si on : “ Und er l on g- es tabl is he d p rin ci pl es , pet it io ne r’s la ckof d il ig en ce pr ecl ud es equi ty’ s o pe rat io n.” Pace, 5 44 U.S. at 4 19 , 12 5 S .Ct. at18 15
. Ourco nc lu si on is bo ls te redby the factth atCh av ez wai te d fo r 20 3 d ay s aft er t he co nc lu si on of h is st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs be fo re d eci di ng to
se ekrel ie f in fed eral co urt. See , e.g., Pac e, 54 4 U.S. at41 9, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 81 5 (rejec ti ng pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t fo r equi tabl e to ll in g i n p artbe cau se “ no t o nl y di d pe ti ti on er s iton hi s ri gh ts fory ears be fo re h e fi le d h is [st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n] pe ti ti on , bu t h e al so saton th em forfiv e m or e m on th s af

te r hi s [s ta te po st co nv ic ti on ] pr oc eed in gs be cam e fi na l b efo re d eci di ng to see k re li ef i n fe de ral
34co urt” ). Forall of t he se reas on s, t he fact s al le ge d i n C ha ve z’s habe as pe ti ti on ,

ev en if the y

were t ru e, wou ldno t en ti tl e h im to equi tabl e to ll in g fo r 91 of t he da y s,
oran y da y s fo r th atm at te r, du rin g wh ic h Weis se nb orn was rep res en ti ng hi m . Insu m m ary, aft er ac co un ti ng forst atut ory to ll in g u nd er § 22 44 (d )(2 ), Ch av ez’s h ab eas pe ti ti on was fi le d 5 20 da y s af te r th e ex pi rat io n o f th e o ne -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d s etou t i n § 22 44 (d ). Even wit h t he ge ne ro us ass um pt io n t ha t th e en ti re 4 29 da y s wh il e Lip in sk i was rep res en ti ng Ch av ez s ho ul d b e equi tabl y to ll ed , th e p et it io n was st il l 9 1 d ay s t oo lat e. Giv en th atth e fac ts all eg edin th e pe ti ti on , eve n i f true , wou ldno t warran t en ou gh equi tabl e to ll in g t o m ak e itti m el y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ha ve z’s m ot io n fo r an
ev id en ti ary he ari ng to pro ve th os e al le ga ti on s. See SanMart in , 63 3 F .3dat 12 71 –7 2 (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to gr an t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on equi tabl e to ll in g wh ere the pe ti ti on er d idno t al le ge “ th athe pro ceed eddi li ge nt ly,” m ad e n o s ho win g o f ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces , and“pr of fere d n o s up po rti ng ev id en ce o f di li ge nc e o r
ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces ”); All en , 61 1 F .3dat 7 63 (“ Hav in g a ll eg edno sp eci fic fact s tha t, i f true , wou lden ti tl e h im to fed eral habe as rel ie f, All en is no t
en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng .”). The ju dg m en t d is m is si ng th e p et it io n a s
un ti m el y is du e to be affi rm ed
. 35AFFIRMED.

36