FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 28, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 12463 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 1 0 1 0 - C V - J - 3 2 - MMH J U A N S M A L L W O O D , 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 , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 28, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A R N E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J ua n S m a l l w ood, aF l or i das t a t e pr i s one rs e r vi ng al i fe s e nt e nc e forfe l ony m ur de r , a ppe a l s pr o s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe ti ti on a s ti m e - ba rr e d. S m a l l w ood f i l e d thi s pe ti ti on a f

t e rhi s pr e vi ous § 2254 p e titio n w a s d is m is s e d w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e b e c a u s e h e fa ile d to p a y th e a p p r o p r ia te f i l i ng fe e , s ubm i ta n a f

f i da vi tof i ndi ge nc y , orf

i l e a n i n for m apa upe r i s a ppl i c a ti on, a s r e qui r e d by the R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e . T he i s s ue forw hi c h S m a l l w ood recei v ed a certi fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty i s: [ w ] he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by di s m i s s i ng S m a l l w ood’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe ti ti on a s ti m e - ba rr e d w he n the di s tr i c tc our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s e d, w i thoutw a r ni ng, hi s pr e vi ous § 2254 pe ti ti on for fa i l u r e t o p a y th e f

i l i n g fe e o rmo v e t o p r o c e e d i n fo r map a u p e r i s ? S e e e .g ., W ils o n v . S a r g e n t, 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W hen revi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni alof a habeas peti ti on , w e r evi ew q u e s tio n s o f

la w d e n o v o . N y la n d v . M o o r e , 2 1 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na ti on tha tape ti ti on foraw r i tof h ab e a s c o rp u s is tim e - b a rr e d . B o n d v . M o o r e , 3 0 9 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A one y e a rpe r i od of

l i m i t a ti on a ppl i e s t o “ a n a ppl i c a ti on foraw r i tof habeas corpus by a pers on i n cust od y pursuantt o the j ud gm entof a S t at e c ou rt . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . T he l i m i t a ti on pe r i od be gi ns on the da t e on w hi c h a ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e b e c o m e f in a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . S e c ti on 2244( d) ( 2) s t a t e s tha t“ [ t ] he ti m e dur i ng w hi c h apr ope r l y f i l e d a ppl i c a ti on3

forS t a t e pos t - c onvi c ti on orothe rc ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w w i th r e s pe c tt o the pe r ti ne nt j udge m e ntorc l a i m i s pe ndi ng s ha l l notbe c ount e d t ow a r d a ny pe r i od of l i m i t a ti on unde rthi s s ubs e c ti on. ” T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tfe de r a l habe a s pe ti ti ons d o n o t c o n s titu te “o th e rc o lla te r a l r e v ie w ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e s ta tu te . D u n c a n v . W a lk e r , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 6 7 , 1 8 1 , 1 2 1 S . C t. 2 1 2 0 , 2 1 2 9 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . C ons e que nt l y , § 2244( d) ( 2) “ doe s nott ol l the l i m i t a ti on pe r i od dur i ng the pend ency of [S m al l w oo d’ s f i rs t ] fe dera l habeas peti ti on . ” I d. T he di stri ctcourt th u s d i d n o terr i n d i sm i ssi n g S m al l w o o d ’ s p eti ti o n as ti m e-b arred u n l ess S m a l l w ood i s e nti t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “th e A E D P A ’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s m a y b e e q u itab ly t ol l ed w hen a m ov antun ti m el y f i l es beca use of e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s that a r e both be y ond hi s c ontr ol a nd una voi dabl e e ve n w i th di l i ge nc e . ” K ni ghtv. S c h o f ie ld , 2 9 2 F .3 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) .

“ E qu i t abl e t ol l i ng i s a n extra ordi nary re m edy w hi ch i s typi ca l l y app l i ed spar i ng l y. ” L a w r e n c e v . F lo r id a , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “E q u itab le to llin g is l i m i t ed t o rar e a nd exce pti on alci rc um st ance s, such as w hen the S t at e’ s c on du ct p r e v e n ts th e p e titio n e rf r o m tim e ly f

ilin g .” I d . S m al l w oo d con t ends thatthe st atut e of l i m i t ati on s s ho ul d b e e qu i t abl y t ol l ed i n hi s c a s e . H e a r gue s tha the m ove d t o pr oc e e d i n for m apa upe r i s be for e the4

di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed hi s ori gi nal peti ti on , and p rom pt l y r ef i l ed hi s peti ti on af

t er r e c e iv in g n o tic e o f

d is m is s a l. H e r e lie s o n W ils o n v . S a r g e n t, 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , to a s s e r t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a n o b lig a tio n to w a r n h im th a t h is o r ig in a l p e titio n w a s o n th e v e r g e o f d is m is s a l if

th e f ilin g fe e w a s n o t p a id . S m a llw o o d c o n te n d s th a t, b a s e d o n th e la c ko f n o tic e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d is m is s e d h is s e c o n d p e titio n a s tim e - b a rr e d , a s h e d id e v e r y th in g r e q u ir e d o f

h im . A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d a n d b o th p a r tie s ’ b r ie fs , w e c o n c lu d e th a t it is unne c e s s a r y t o de c i de w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n s uas pont e di s m i s s i ng S m a l l w ood’ s f

i r s tfe de r a l habe a s pe ti ti on w i thoutnoti c e be c a us e S m a l l w ood i s not enti t l ed t o equ i t abl e t ol l i ng . S m al l w oo d w as no tthe vi cti m of “ extra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t ar e b o th b e y o n d h is c o n tr o l a n d u n a v o id ab le e v e n w ith di l i gence, ” a nd , thu s, do es no tqu al i fy for e qu i t abl e r el i ef . K ni gh t , 29 2 F . 3d at 71 1. S m al l w oo d d oes notar gu e thathe never re ce i ved n ot i ce thatthe di stri ctcourt di sm i ss ed hi s i ni ti al§ 2 25 4 p eti ti on . Inst ea d, S m al l w oo d st at ed thathe re ce i ved no ti ce and cho se t o fi l e anew peti ti on . S m al l w oo d d i d n otappeal the di stri ct c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of

hi s i ni ti a l § 2254 pe ti ti on. S i nc e he di d note xha us tthe opti ons a va i l abl e t o hi m w he n hi s f i r s tfe de r a l habe a s pe ti ti on w a s di s m i s s e d, he di d not exer ci se the l evel of di l i gence re qu i re d t o sho w the “ rare and excepti on al5

c i r c um s t a nc e s ” tha tqua l i f y ape ti ti one rfore qui t abl e t ol l i ng. S e e L a w r e nc e , 421 F . 3d a t1226. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.