FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15358 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 1 3 0 - CV - SH D A Q U I L A R D I L A R I O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , J a m e s V . C r o s b y , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 5, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i one r/A ppe l l a ntD a qui l a r d I l a r i on, aF l or i das t a t e pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appeal s the di sm i ss al of hi s habea s c orpu s pet i t i on , 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4, as ba rr e d by the one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons s e tbythe A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof

1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . O n ap p e a l, I la r io n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t s h o u ld h a v e g r a n te d h im equi t abl e t ol l i ng for the t i m e per i od betw ee n Jul y 17, 20 02 , w hen the F l ori da T hi rd D i s tr i c tC ourtof

A ppe a l di s m i s s e d hi s appe a l f r om the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

or st at e post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef for f ai l ure t o com pl y w i th i t s pri or order t o fi l e abri ef w i thi n 20 da y s , a nd M a r c h 27, 2003, w he n I l a r i on f i l e d hi s s t a t e habe a s c orpus p e titio n , s e e k in g r e in s ta te m e n t o f h is s ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n ap p e a l. A c c o r d in g to Il ari o n , h e d i d n o trecei v e n o t i ce o f ei th er th e o rd er t o fi l e h i s b ri ef w i th i n 2 0 d ays o r th e d i sm i ssal o f th e ap p eal o f th e m o t i o n fo r st at e p o st -co n v i ct i o n rel i ef, b ecau se st at e c orre ct i on al offi ci al s f ai l ed t o forw ar d h i s m ai l w hen h e w as transfe rr ed b e tw e e n c o rr e c tio n a l f

a c ilitie s . We r e v i e w de no vo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de nye qui t abl e t ol l i ng. D rew v. D ep ’t

o f C o rrs. , 2 9 7 F . 3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Ho we v e r , we re vi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of the re l evantfa ct s, i ncl ud i ng tho se re l at ed to ap e titio n e r ’s d ilig e n c e , f o rc le a re rr o r . Id . “ T hi s s t andard requi re s us t o aff i rm ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t u n le s s th e r e c o r d la c k s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to3

supp ortthatdet erm i nat i on . ” Id . (quo t at i on and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he A E D P A i m pos e s aone - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orf i l i ng a§ 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on, w hi c h be gi ns t o run f ol l ow i ng one of

f oure ve nt s , i nc l udi ng “ the d a te o n w h ic h th e ju d g m e n t b e c a m e f in a l . . . .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . A j u d g m en tb eco m es “ fi n al ” o n th e d at e o n w h i ch th e U . S . S u p rem e C o u rti ssu es a deci si on on the m er i t s of the pet i t i on er ’ s di re ctappeal or deni es ce rt i orar i , or af t er th e e x p ir a tio n o f

th e 9 0 d a y s in w h ic h th e p e titio n e rc o u ld f ile s u c h ap e titio n . B o n d v. Mo o re , 30 9 F . 3d 77 0, 77 3-74 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A “ prop er l y f i l ed ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rSt a t e p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n o ro th e rc o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w ” t o l l s th e A ED PA s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s p e r io d w h ile th e s ta te ap p lic a tio n is p e n d in g . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . W h e r e ap e titio n e rs e e k s ab e la te d ap p e a l o f a n o r d e rd e n y in g p o s tc onvi c t i on r e l i e f

, the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i s t ol l e d w hi l e the appe a l i s pe ndi ng. Moor e v . Cr os by , 32 1 F . 3d 13 77 , 13 81 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he peri od du ri ng w hi ch no appl i c a t i on, how e ve r , i s pe ndi ng i s nott ol l e d be c aus e the s t a tut oryt ol l i ng p e r io d o n lye n c o m p a s s e s p e r io d s d u r in g w h ic h th e r e is ap r o p e r lyf ile d ap p lic a tio n . Id . A dd i t i on al l y, the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s c an be equi t abl y t ol l ed w here a p e titio n e r“u n tim e lyf

ile s b e c au s e o f

e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a r e b o th beyond hi s c on trol and u navo i dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence. ” Ste e d v . H e ad , 219 F . 3d4

12 98 , 13 00 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). E qu i t abl e t ol l i ng i s e xtra ordi nary a n d ap p lie d s p a r in g ly . D re w , 2 9 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 8 6 . “ E a c h c a s e tu rn s o n i t s o wn fa ct s. ” Kn ig h t v . Sc h o

fie ld , 29 2 F . 3d 70 9, 71 1 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). T he pet i t i on er b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th a t e q u itab le to llin g is w a rr a n te d . D re w , 29 7 F . 3d at 12 86 . A l tho ug h w e have char ac t er i ze d the equi t abl e t ol l i ng st andard as a tw o-part t e s t , r e qui r i ng ade f

e nda ntt o e s t abl i s h both e xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s a nd due di l i gence, court s nee d n otconsi der w hether e xtra ordi naryci rc um st ance s e xi sti f a pe t i t i one r ’ s de l a y i n f

i l i ng the f

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on e xhi bi t s al a c k of due d ilig e n c e . D i a z v. Sec’y f o r D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 36 2 F . 3d 69 8, 70 2 & n. 7 (11 th C i r. 2004) ( e xpr e s s l y r e f

us i ng t o c ons i de rD i a z ’ s e xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s a r gum e nt in lig h t o f

h is u n e x p la in e d 5 3 2 - d a yd e la yin f ilin g h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n ) . T o da t e , w e ha ve he l d onl y onc e i n apubl i s he d opi ni on tha te qui t abl e t ol l i ng ap p lie d to th e A E D P A ’s o n e y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n . Kni

ght , 29 2 F . 3d at71 1. In Kni ght , the s t a t e c ourtha d a s s ur e d the pe t i t i one rtha ti tw oul d c ont a c thi m a s s oon a s ad e c is io n h a d b e e n m a d e a n d th e n in a d v e rte n tlys e n t n o tic e o f th e d e c is io n to the w r ong pe r s on. 292 F . 3d a t710. M e a nw hi l e , the A E D P A ’ s one - y e a rs t a tut e of lim ita tio n p e r io dlap s e d . Id . I m p o rta n tly , th e p e titio n e rd e m o n s tr a te d d ilig e n c e in i nqui r i ng aboutthe s t a tus of hi s c a s e w he n the c ourtf a i l e d t o c ont a c thi m a f

t e r15 m o n th s . Id . a t 7 1 1 . B y c o n tr a s t, w e h a v e h e ld th a t ap r is o n e rw a s n o t e n title d to5

e qui t abl e t ol l i ng w he r e he c l a i m e d t o ha ve c ont a c t e d the s t a t e c ourtbym a i l , but di d n otprov i de any c op i es of the l ett er s, di d n otm ake a tt em pt s t o con t ac tthe court in a n y o th e rm a n n e r , a n d w a s n o t g iv e n a s s u r a n c e o f n o tif ic a tio n b yth e s ta te c o u rt. D re w , 2 9 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on not t o app l y e qu i t abl e t ol l i ng i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. T he du e di l i gence a n a ly s is is d is p o s itiv e in th is c a s e . See D i az , 362 F . 3d a t702 & n. 7 T he r e f or e , the c a s e turns on w he the rthe c ourtc l e a r l ye rr e d w he n i tf ound tha tI l a r i on l a c ke d the d u e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e d to w a rr a n t e q u itab le to llin g . D re w , 297 F . 3d a t1283. T he r e c o r d in c lu d e s n o e v id e n c e th a t I la r io n w a s d ilig e n t ab o u t r e q u e s tin g h is m a il fr om pri son autho ri t i es du ri ng the t i m es thathe w as athi s ori gi nal corr ec t i on al i ns t i tut i on. L i ke w i s e , nothi ng i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tI l a r i on m a de a nya tt e m pt to k e e p th e c o u rt ap p r is e d o f h is a d d r e s s w h e n h e w a s tr a n s f e rr e d . T h e o n ly cont ac the al l eges t o h ave had w i th the courtw as vi a tw o l ett er s: the fi rs tdat ed N ov em ber 13, 20 02 and the se cond dat ed F ebruary10 , 20 03 , nei ther of w hi ch ar e in c lu d e d in th e r e c o r d . E v e n a s s u m in g I la r io n m a d e th e s e w r itte n in q u ir ie s , th is C o u rt h a s p r e v io u s lyr e q u ir e d m o r e o f in c a r c e r a te d p e titio n e r s in o r d e rto d e m o n s tr a te d ilig e n c e . See D re w , 29 7 F . 3d at12 89 (hol di ng thatpet i t i on erw as note nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng w he r e he di d notm a ke a nya tt e m pt s t o c ont a c tthe6

courtother than b y l ett er s, copi es of w hi ch he di d n otprov i de). B ec ause Il ar i on has f

ai l ed t o sho w thatthe re cord l ac ks subst ant i al evi dence t o s upportthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ng tha the w a s notdi l i ge nta nd, the r e f or e , not e n title d to e q u itab le to llin g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r lye rr . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng Il ar i on ’ s habea s pe t i t i on a s t i m e - ba rr e d. AF F I RME D.