FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1120 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 56 1- CV-IPJ -J EO MIC HAEL L EE LAN G, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us STATE OF AL ABAMA, STEPHEN BULLARD, W ar de n, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF AL ABAMA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Alabam a

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ay 5 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BI N A a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M:

Al ab ama p ri s o n erMi ch ae l Le e L an g ap p ea l s p ro s e t h e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s de nia l of his f ed er al habe as c orpus pe tit ion , br ough t un de r 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54. T his ap pe al is gove rn edby the A nti te rr or ism a nd E ff ec tiv e D ea th P en al ty A ct of 199 6 (A E D PA ). A j udge of

thi s C ourt gr an te d ac ertif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty ( CO A ) on whether the district court erred bydismissin g Best’ s § 225 4 petitio n as tim eb arr e d
. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i r m. N o on e dis put es tha t L an g’ s c onvi ct ion be ca m e fi na l on 11 A pr il 2000 , w he n th e A laba m a Co urt of Crimina l A ppe al s e nte re d ac ertif ic at e of j udgmen t,
an d th at he ha d un til 12 A pr il 2001 to fi le his § 22 54 p et iti on. L an g di d no t f ile his f ir st s ta te pos t- co nvi ct ion A la
. R. Crim
. P. 32 p et iti on u nti l 22 Marc h 20 02,
w hic h w as ti m el y und er

the state ’ s tw o- y ear lim

itatio n pe ri od, but

w as a ft er the A E D PA ’ s li mita tio n pe ri od h ade xpi re d. T hus, the ti m e dur ing w hic h hi s R ule 32 pe tit ion w as pe ndi ng d id n ot t oll the A E D PAli mitatio n pe ri od. S ee T ink er v. Moore, 255 F.3d 133 1, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001 ). T he state appellate court af firmed the de nia l of

his Ru le 32 p et iti on a nd e nte re d ac ertif ic at e of j udgmen t on 24 Ja nuary200 3. L an g f

ile d hi s § 2 254 pe tit ion on 8 Marc h 20 03.3

T his c as e is about

w he the r L an g is e nti tle d to e qui table tol lin g of the AE DP A’ s one-y ear limitation p eriod, 28 U .S .C. § 2244 (d)(1), due to his m edical conditi ons. Bef

ore and during 20 00, L ang suffered f rom painful hem orrhoids th at
re qui re d m ed ic at ion
. F ro m Jun e to D ec em

be r 2000 , L an g r ec ei ve d or de rs not to sit or to stand for prolonged periods
. On 23 February 2001 , L ang was diagnosed with cance r of the anus. In ear ly Marc h 200 1, L ang was pre scribed a ten-w eek
co ur se of intra ve nous c he m oth er ap y a nd b eg an to suf fe r fr om nause a, diz zi ne ss, and fatigue. A lso, beginnin g in Dece m ber 2000, La ng int ermittently began
ex pe ri en ci ng s ign if

ic an t c he st p ai n. O n 24 Jul y 200 1, L an g un de rw en t tri ple
co ro naryby pa ss s ur ge rya nd w as hos pit al iz edf or six da y s. I n January200 2,
m ed ic al r ec or ds s how edtha t L an g w as he al thye noug h to w al k a nd j og. L an g arg ue s th at

his m ed ic al pr obl em s w er e be y ond his c ontro l a nd
una voi dable suc h th at

the y c onst itu te e xtr ao rd inaryc ir cu m sta nc es j ust if y ing the eq uit ab le tol lin g of

the A E D PA ’ s li mitatio n pe ri od. H e co nte nds tha t r ec ta l pa in and the do-no t-sit orders prevented him from attending th e law library , w hich
re qui re s in m at es to sit
. H e al so m ai nta ins tha t hi s c he st p ai n a nd the e ff ec ts o f the chem otherapy prevented him from preparing his § 22 54 petiti on. L ang asserts that the ti m el y f

ili ng o f his A laba m a Ru le 32 p et iti on, sho rt ly a ft er he w as he al thy4

en ough to w al k a nd t o j og, sho w s th at he w as dil ige nt i n pu rs uin g hi s § 2 254 pe tit ion
. W e re vie w de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s di smiss al of ape tit ion f

or w ri t of ha be as co rp us an d i ts leg al de ci si on on eq ui ta bl e to ll in g. Drew v . Dep’t o f Co rr., 297 F.3d 127 8, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002 ). But w e re view f or clear err or the district
co u rt ’s d et er mi n at i o n s o f r el ev an tfa ct s . Id . In ra re ca s es , t h e A EDP A’s lim ita tio ns p eriodc an be tol le d e qui tably“ w he n ‘ ex tr ao rd inaryc ir cu m sta nc es ’ ha ve w orke d to pr ev en t a n othe rw ise dil ige nt p et iti one r fr om ti m el y f ili ng h is petition .” H elton v. Sec ’ y for D ep’ t of Corr. , 259 F. 3d 13 10, 1312 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). W e have stressed that “ the petition er m ust sh ow both extraordinary circum stances and due dilig ence in order to be e ntitled to equitable tolli ng.” D iaz v. Se c’ y for D ep’ t of Corr. , 362 F. 3d 69 8, 701 (11th Cir. 2004). W e do n ot d oubt

tha t L an g su ff

er edf ro m sig nif ic an t he al th p ro ble m s du ri ng the AE DP A limitation p eriod. L ang, though , has not shown (1) that his m edical conditi ons were sufficiently debilitatin g to const itute “ extraordinary ci rc um sta nc es ” j ust if

y ing e qui table tol lin g a nd ( 2) tha t he e xe rc ise d e noug h dil ige nc e in p ur sui ng h is § 225 4 pe tit ion during the li mitatio n pe ri od. L an g suf fe re d f ro m r ec ta l pa in b ef

or e the li mitatio n pe ri od b eg an to ru n a nd f ro m c he st pain begin ning in Dec em ber 2000. But no evidence shows that Lang experience d5

inc ap ac ityunt il mid- June 200 0, w he n he r ec ei ve d th e fi rs t or de r not to sit f or lon ge r tha n 30 minu te s a t a ti m e. A nd L an g of

fe rs no e xpl an at ion w hy he c oul d not somet imes sit

in the la w li br ary f

or le ss tha n 30 minu te s to pr ep ar e his § 22 54 pe tit ion
. L an g, a lso , ha s no t sh ow n th at , be fo re his Jul y 200 1 ho spi ta liz at ion , his ch es t pa in w as suc h th at

it pr ev en te d hi m

f ro m takin g so m e ac tio n to pur sue the timel y f ili ng o f his § 22 54 p et iti on. F urthe r, e ve n w er e w e to t oll the li mitatio n period during the ten we eks of La ng’s c hem otherapy and during his six -day hosp italization for heart surgery , L ang’ s § 225 4 petitio n still would have been
u n t i mel y. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c ommitt edno e rr or in de te rm

ini ng tha t L an g w as not entitled to th e equitable tollin g of the AE DP A limitation p eriod. T hus, the district
co urt c orre ct ly dis miss edL an g’ s § 2 254 pe tit ion a s ti m e- barr ed
. AFFIRMED.