Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 41638 RO BER T J OSEPH SCHM I TT P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. B. ZELL ER , W ar de n R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V
- 168 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * P r o c e e d in gp r o s e , R o b e r t J o s e p h S c h m itta p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is a p p lic a tio n fo rfe d e r a l h a b e a s re lie f. W e A F F IR M . O n A ugust9, 2001, a j u ryco n vi c t ed Sc hm i t tof t w o c ount s of

s exual as s aulto f

ac hi l d. The Tw e l f t h Cour to f

Appeal s i n Te xa s a f f i r m e d the c o n v i c t i o n s o nOc t o b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 3 . S c h mi t td i dn o tf i l e f o rd i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w. S chm i t tf

i l ed a stat e ha beas ap pl i cat i on on A u gu st1 6, 2 004 . T h e T exas C ou rt of C ri m i n a lA p p ea l s d en i edthe a p p l i ca ti on on F eb ru a ry16 , 20 0 5 , bu t Sc h m i tt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 41638

2 di d no tl e ar n of

t he deni alunt i lF e br uary 23 , 200 6, a f t e rhe i nquir e d abo utt he a p p l i c a t i o n’ s s t a t us . On M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 6 , Sc hm i t twr o t e al e t t e rt o t heTe x as A t t orney G en eralexpl ai n i n g h i s s itua t i on . Th e A t t orney G en eral ’ s O f f i ce respond ed byl et t er da t ed M arch 27, 200 6, i n f orm i n g S chm i t tt h at itrepresented t h e State an d could n otp rovi de h i m w i t h legala dv i ce. S chm i t tsay s h e rec eived t he l et t erM ar c h 30, 2006. Schm i t tf

i l ed a fede r al appl i c at i on f or a w r i t of

habeas c or pus o n A pril14, 2 0 0 6 . S ee28 U . S . C . § 2254 . Th e app l i cat i on al l egedi n ef fect ive assi st an ce of cou nse l and m ul t i pl e er r or s by t he t r i al c our t . Th e G ove r nm ent m oved to di s m i s s t he pe t i t i o n a s t i m e - ba r r e d. T h e m ag i s t r at e j udg e r e c o m m e nde d the peti t i on be di sm i ssed as t i m e- barred. Sch m i t tf i l ed n o obj ect i on s. Th e di st ri ct c o u r t a d o p te dt h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s R e p o r t a n dR e c o m m e n d a tio n . O n a p p e a l, Schm i t tar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n denyi ng hi m eq ui t abl e t oll i ng. Th e An t i t er r or i sm and E f fec t ive D eat h Penal t y A c t of 1996 pr ovi des t hat an y federalch al l en ge t o a stat e convi ct i onm u stbe broug h tw i t h i n one yea r af t er di rectrevi ew of

t h e j u dg m en tbecom es f i n al . 28 U . S . C . § 2244 ( d)( 1) . Th e peri od i s t ol l ed on ce an i n m ate f i l es f or post - convic t i on revi e w in st ate c ou rt , t h en r e c o m m e n c e s w h e n a fin a l d e n ia l o f r e lie f b yth e s ta te o c c u r s . I d. a t § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2). Bes i de s t he s t at ut o r y t o l l i ng, a n i nm at e m ayq uali f y f o re quit ab l e t o l l i ng if th e fa ilu r e to file tim e lyis ca u s e db y“e x te r n a l fa c to r s b e y o n dh is co n tr o l; d elay s of th e p eti ti on er’ s ow n m a k i n g d o n ot qu a l i fy. ” In re Wi lson , 442 F. 3d 872, 87 5 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 00 6) . The pe t i t i o ne rm us ts ho w : “ ( 1) thathe ha s b e e n pu r s ui ng h is rig h ts d ilig e n tly , a n d(2 ) th a t s o m e e x tr a o r d in a r ycir c u m s ta n c e s to o dinh is w a y.” Law r e nc ev . Flo r i da, 549 U . S. 327, 336 ( 2007) ( q u ot i ng Pa c ev. Di Gug l i e l mo , 544 U . S. 408, 418 ( 2005) ) . The m agi st r at e j udge f ound t hat Schm i t tw as notent i t l ed t o e qui t abl e t oll i ng. B ecau se Sch m it tdi d n ot obj ect t o t h e reportof t h e m agis t rat e, w e revi ew o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . D o ug la s v . Un it e dSe r v s . A u to . A s s ’n , 79 F. 3d 1415, 1428- 29N o. 06- 41638

3 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) ( en ban c) . For t h ere to be pl ai n error, the di st ri ctcourtm u sterr , t he e r r o rm us tb e p l a i n, a ndt hee r r o rm us ta f fe c tt he i nm a t e ’ s “ s ub s t a nt i al ri gh ts. ” P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t . 1423, 1429 ( 2009) . The c our thas di scr et i on t o rem edyt h e err or but s h ou l d exerci se the di scr et i on onl y i f t h e err or
“ se r i ous l y af

fec t [ s] the fair nes s, i nt egr i t y o rpubl i cr eput at i on o f j udi c i al p roce ed i n gs . ” I

d. ( quot i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 (19 9 3 )). Schm i t tdel ayed appro xi m at ely t en m ont hs af t erhi s c onvi c t i on w as f i nal bef ore app l yi n g f

or s t ate hab eas rel i ef. W e h ave r ecognized t h at a com pon en tof th e ob l i ga ti on to p u rsu e ri gh ts d i l i ge n tly i s n ot to w a i t un tiln ea r a d ea d l i n e to m a k e a fi l i n g , th e ns e e ke q u ita b le to llin gw h e n s o m e th in gg o e s a w r y . S ee Jo hns o n v . Q uar t e r m an , 483 F . 3d 278 , 287 - 88 (5t h C i r. 200 7) (f i l i n g on t h e l ast da y ande nc o unt e r i ng a c o ur tco m put e rpr o bl e m t hatpr e ve nt e d f i l i ng s ho w e d a l ac k o f dil i ge nc e ) . Si m i l ar l y, Sc hm i t t ’ s f i l i ng t he s t at e pe t i t i o n a f t e rs qua nde r i ng m ostof t he y e ara va i l ab l e und e rSe c t i o n 2 24 4 i s afac t o ri n de c i di ng w he t h er e quit ab l e t ol l i ng s ho ul d b e a l l o w e d f o rpr o bl e m s t hata r i s e i n l at e rf i l i ng t he fede ra lpe titi on . L ea vin g littl e m a rg i n f or er ror is i n ca u ti ou s an dn ot d i l i ge n t. H avi ng only t w o m ont hs t o a c tonc e the s t at e habe as pr oc ee di ngs co n clu d e d, Sch m i t tdi d n oti n qu i re i n t o hi s app l i cat i on ’ s s t atus f or ei gh t een m o nt hs , w hi c h was ay e ara f t e rt he de ni alo f

r e l i e f ha d act u al l y been e nt e r e d. H e th en de l a ye da n o th er fifty d a ys be tw ee n l ea rn i n g o f th e d en i a lof th e sta te a p p lic a tio n a n dfilin gh is S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n . I n eval uat i ng di l i genc e, ou r pr ec ede nt s have e xam i ned bo t h t he del ay be t w e e n f

i l i ng f o r r e l i e f i n s t at e c o ur t and l at e r i nquir i ng ab o ut i t s s t at us , a nd t he del a y b etw een l ear ni ng of t he s t at e c our t ’ s r ul i ng and t he f i l i ng of an ap pl i cat i on un der S ect i on 2 254 in federalcou rt . W e h ave f ou n d di l i gen ce w h en ape titio n e rw a i tedeleve n m on th s be fore i n q u i ri n g in to the statu s of his state h a b e a s p e tit io n a n dth e n file dh is fe d e r a l a p p lic a tio n o n ly o n e w e e k la te r . Har dy v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 77 F. 3d5 96 , 599 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) . W e ha vea l s o f o und dil i ge ntN o. 06- 41638

4 p u rsu i t of

reli ef w h en sev en m on th s after f i l i n g h i s state p et itio n , the i n m a te l earn ed of

i t s den i al , f

il ed f or an ou t - of

- t i m e app ealt h ree days l ater , t h en f i l ed fo rfe d e r a lh a b e a s w ith in am o n th o f th e d e n ia l o f th e o u t-o f-t im e a p p e a l. Ph ill ip s v . D o n n elly , 2 1 6 F .3 d5 0 8 , 5 1 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Conv e r s e l y, w e f

o und l ac k o f

dil i ge nc e w he r e t he pe t i t i o ne ra l l e ge d t hathe f i l ed a st at e pe t i t i on butl ear ned appr oxi m at ely t en m ont hs l a ter

–w hi c h w as eigh t m on th s after th e ti m e to fil e h a d ex p i red

– th a t th ere w a s n o record of it. Ho w land v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 0 7 F .3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A m o n gth e in d ic ia o f a l a ck of d i l i ge n ce w a s th a t th e i n m a te h a d w a i ted ten m on th s a fte rh is c o n v ic tio n b e fo r e a tt e m p tin gto file h is s ta te h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n . I d. In ad d i ti on , w e fou n da lack of d i l i ge n ce w h e n a n in m a te w a i tedthirty m o n th s b e fo r e in q u ir in gin to th e s ta tu s o f h is s ta te p e tit io n . L ew is v . Co ck re ll, 2 7 5 F .3 d4 6 , 2 0 0 1 W L 1 2 6 7 7 0 1 (5 th C ir . O c t. 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 ) (u n p u b lis h e d). L e w is fil edh i s S ection22 5 4 ap p lic a ti on w i th i n tw o w ee k s of l ea rn i n g th a t th e sta te co u rt d e n iedre li e f, b u t it w a s th e th irty -m o n th d e la yth a t w e fou n dto d isq u a lify h im fr o m e q u ita b le re lie f. Id . at *3. Th ou gh t h e L ew isde cisio n is not pr e c e de nt i al , i tw as s o m e g ui da nc e f o rSc hm i t ta s he w as de t e r m i ni ng w hathe h a dto d o . T h i s ca selaw rev ea l s th a t th ere i s n o m a th em a ti ca lf orm u labyw h i ch to ca l cu l a te d i l i ge n ce b y a n i n m a te i n l ea rn i n g e i th er of the de n i a lof h i s state h abea s r el i ef

or i n th ereaf

t er f i l i n g h i s Sect i on 225 4 ap pl i cat i on . “A s a di sc r et i onar y do c t r i ne t hatt urns on the fac t s and c i r c um st ance s of a par t i c ul ar ca se, eq u i tab l e tolli n g d oe s n ot l en ditself to brigh t-lin e ru l es.” Fi s herv. Joh n son , 1 74 F . 3d7 10, 7 13 ( 5th C i r. 1 999 ) . S chm i t t ’ s i n i t i aldel ay of ei gh t een m o nt hs i s s ho r t e rt han t he pe r i o ds w e ha vef o und no tto ref

l e c tdil i ge nc e , a nd l on ger t h an an y i n w h i ch w e h ave f ou n d di l i gen ce. Th e w ai tof f i f t y da ys af

t er l ear ni ng of

t he deni alof

r eli ef i n st at e c our tbe fore f i l i ng t he s ec t i on 2254N o. 06- 41638

5 appl i c at i on, a w ai tw hi c h i ncl uded c ont ac tw i t h and a r es ponsef r om t he Texas A t t orney G en eral ’ s O f f i ce, ha s no cl ear an al ogy i n t h e preceden t s. B ecau se t h ere i s no m athem ati calf orm u l a t o a pp l y, an d the di st ri ctcourt w a s p res e n te dw i th de l a ys som ew h ere be tw ee n tho se th a t ha ve be en f ou n dto r e f l e c tdil i ge nc e a nd o t he r s t hatdono t , w e co nc l ude t hata ny e r r o ri n r e f us i ng to a p p lye q u ita b le t o llin gw o u ldn o t b e o b v io u s u n d e rcu r r e n t la w . Un i t ed S t ate s v. V alles , 4 8 4 F .3 d7 4 5 , 7 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Be c a u s e t h e r e wa s n o p l a i n e r r o r , we AF FI RM .