F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT AP RIL 19 , 201 2 JO HN LEY [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 97 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 02 61 -RS

JEFF REY GLENN HUTCHINSON, 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 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 t - Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Thi s i s an ot he r fed eral habe as st atut e o f li m it at io ns cas e, in vo lv in g a no th er

equi tabl e to ll in g i ss ue . See g en eral ly 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d ); Ho ll an d v . Flo rid a, __ U.S. __ , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 54 9 (2 01 0) . Jeff rey G. Hut ch in so n was co nv ic te d o f fo ur co un ts of f

irs t d eg ree m

ur de r fo r sh ot gu nn in g t o d eat h h is gi rlf rie nd , Ren ee Fl ah erty , andhe r th ree c hi ld ren : n in e-year-o ldGeof frey, sev en -y ear- ol d Am an da , an d fo ur -y ear- ol d Lo gan. Hu tc hi ns on v. St at e, 88 2 S o. 2 d 9 43 , 94 8– 49 (Fl a. 20 04 ) ab ro ga te d b y

Depa rv in e v . Sta te , 99 5 S o. 2 d 3 51 (Fl a. 20 08 ). He was s en te nc edto li fe i m pr is on m en t fo r th e m

ur de r of Ren ee Fl ah erty

an d t o d eat h fo r th e m

ur de r of each ch il d. Id . at 9 49 . His c on vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es were af firm edondi rect ap pe al . Id. at96 1. Aft er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng st at e co ll at eral rel ie f was de ni ed , an d t ha t d en ia l was affi rm edby the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. Hutc hi ns on v. St at e, 17 So . 3d69 6, 7 02 –0 4 (F la . 20 09 ). The di stric t co urt d is m is se d Hu tc hi ns on ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r fed eral habe as rel ie f be cau se itwas n otfil edun ti l J ul y 24 , 20 09 , whi ch was t hr ee y ears , ni ne m on th s, an d t wen ty-fou r da y s (o r 1,3 93 da y s) aft er the on e-year st atut e of li m it at io ns co nt ai ne d i n § 22 44 (d ) ha d ru n o n S ep te m be r 30 , 20 05 . Hut ch in so n v. Fl or id a, No. 5 :0 9- CV-2 61 -RS, 2 01 0 WL 38 33 92 1 (N.D. Fl a. Sep t. 2 8, 2 01 0)
. Thi s i s Hu tc hi ns on ’s app eal fro m th atdi sm is sa l. Und er § 22 44 (d )(1 )(A) the on e-year pe rio d fo r fi li ng a fed eral habe as 2pe ti ti on st art s ru nn in g o n t he da te “ on whi ch th e [s ta te co urt] judg m en t b ecame

fin al by the co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or t he ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g su ch rev ie w.” But§ 2 24 4( d) (2 ) pr ov id es th at“ [t]he ti m e dur in g wh ic h apro pe rly fil edap pl ic at io n fo r St at e p os t-c on vi ct io n o r ot he r co ll at eral rev ie w with re sp ectto th e p ert in en t ju dg m en t o r cl ai m is pe nd in g s ha ll no t b e co un te d.” In o rd er fo r th at § 2 24 4( d) (2 ) st atut ory

to ll in g t o app ly, th e p et it io ne r m us t fi le hi s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on be fo re the on e-year pe rio d fo r fi li ng hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on ha s ru n. McC lo udv. Ho ok s, 5 60 F.3d12 23 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); Al ex an de r v. Se c’y , Dep ’t of Co rr., 52 3 F .3d12 91 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by W al l v . Kho li , __U.S. __ , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 27 8 (2 01 1) ; s ee al so Hun te r v. Fe rrel l, 58 7 F .3d13 04 , 13 08 n.3 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Hut ch in so n’s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on was no t fi le d u nt il Octo be r 20 , 20 05 , whi ch was t wen ty day s af te r th e en ti re o ne y ear p eri odforfil in g t he fed eral pe ti ti on ha d ru n o n S ep te m be r 30 , 20 05 , andas a res ul t n on e o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r fi li ng hi s fe de ral pe ti ti onwas l eftto be to ll ed . From th atpo in t o n Hu tc hi ns on ’s ho pe s fo r rel ie f were ri di ng all or n ot hi ng on hi s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on , andth e res ul t ca m e up n ot hi ng when th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af

firm edth e d en ia l o f co ll at eral rel ie f. See Hu tc hi ns on , 17 So . 3d at70 2– 04
. Hut ch in so n re co gn iz es bo th th athi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on sh ou ldha ve 3be enfil edby Sept em be r 30 , 20 05 , andth atbe cau se hi s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on was no t fi le d u nt il Octo be r 20 , 20 05 , he c an no t cl ai m st atut ory to ll in g u nd er § 22 44 (d )(2 ) fo r an y

of t he ti m e th athi s s ta te co ll at eral pro ceed in g was on go in g. His so le co nt en ti on is th athe is en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g. Se e g en eral ly Hol land , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 54 9. Equi tabl e to ll in g i s, wel l, equi tabl e in na tu re, an d de ci si on s re gard in g i t m

us t b e m ad e “ on a cas e-b y -cas e b as is ” in li gh t o f “ sp eci fic ci rcu m st an ces , oft enhardto pre di ctinadva nc e,” al th ou gh we “ can an d d o d raw up on de ci si on s m ad e in ot he r si m il ar ca se s fo r gu id an ce.” Id . at 2 56 3 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . W e tu rnno w to th e sp eci fic fact s an d c irc um st an ces of thi s ca se as well as t o t he de ci si on s i n s im il ar ca se s fo r gu id an ce. The pa rti es ag ree t ha t the pro bl em inth is cas e aro se be cau se th e at to rn ey s who fil edHut ch in so n’s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on mis un de rs to odth e d at e o n wh ic h th e li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg anto run at t he en d o f th e d ire ctap pe al pro ces s an d, as a res ul t, the y

m is cal cu la te d t he fil in g d ead li ne . Becau se no pe ti ti onforwritof cert io rari was fi le d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt as pa rt o f th e d ire ctap pe al , th e ti m e fo r fi li ng th e fed eral habe as pe ti ti onst art edrun ni ng up on “ th e ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). Hut ch in so n’s at to rn ey s u nd ers to odth at , bu t the y m is un de rs to odwhen th e ti m e fo r se ek in g cert io rari rev ie w of ast at e co urt’s jud gm en t ex pi red . They th ou gh t tha t the ti m e 4fo r do in g s o e xp ire d n in ety da y s af te r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d i ts
m an da te on Ju ly 22, 2 00 4. Se e App . A ¶ 2. In st ead , th e ti m e actua ll y ex pi red ni ne ty day s af

te r th e is su an ce o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s jud gm en t (t he op in io n was th e jud gm en t), wh ic h h adhapp en edtwen ty-on e d ay s ea rli er o n J ul y 1, 20 04 . See Sup. Ct . R. 13 .3 (“ The ti m e to fil e a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f certi or ari run s fro m th e d at e o f en try of the jud gm en t o r or de r so ug htto be rev ie wed , andno t fro m th e is su an ce d at e o f th e m an da te (orit s equi va le ntun de r lo cal pra ct ic e).”)
. As a re su ltof tha t m is un de rs ta nd in g, Hu tc hi ns on ’s att orne y s m is cal cu la te d th e d ead li ne by whi ch th ey were re qu ire d t o fi le eit he r Hut ch in so n’s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on or f

il e h is st at e co ll at eral pe ti ti on inti m e to st atut or il y to ll th e fed eral li m it at io ns pe rio d. Th ey be li ev edth atth ey

ha d unt il Octo be r 20 , 20 05 , in st eadof S ep te m

be r 30 , 20 05 , whi ch was t he actua l d ead li ne . Becaus e th ey fil ed 1 Hut ch in so n’s s ta te co ll at eral pe ti ti on on Octo be r 20 , 20 05 , th e § 22 44 (d )(2 ) to ll in g pr ov is io n d idno t k ic k i n a ndwhenHut ch in so n fi na ll y fil edhi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on on Ju ly 24, 2 00 9, i t was th ree- an d- th ree- qu art ers y ears to o l at e. A pet it io ne r ha s t he bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g h is rig ht —i f “ rig ht ” is no t t oo By our ca lculations, the ac tual deadline should have bee n September 29, 2005, be cause 1 that is one year

afte r September

29, 2004, the date on which the judgment of the state c ourt beca me final unde r § 2244(d) (1)( A). F or some re ason, the district cour t said and the pa

rties say that the dea dline was Septembe r 30, 2005. B eca use the diff

ere nce makes no diffe renc e we will use the Septembe r 30, 2005 date , too. 5st ro ng a wor d i n t he areaof e qu it y —t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. He m us t p le ador p ro ffer
en ou ghfact s t ha t, i f true , wou ldjus ti fy anev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e is su e. Ch av ez v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 7 F .3d10 57 , 10 60 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). And th e al le ga ti on s s up po rti ng equi tabl e to ll in g m us t b e sp eci fic an d n otco nc lu so ry . Id . at 1 06 1. Th e Supr em e Co urt d idsay in Ho ll an d t ha t al th ou gh equi tabl e rel ie f is fle xi bl e an d a ll th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces m us t b e co ns id ered , we sh ou ld

“ dr aw up on de ci si on s m ad e in othe r si m il ar ca se s fo r gu id an ce.” Ho ll an d, 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 3. We tak e th atst at em en t t o m ean th is is no t anareafree of rul es of la w, go ve rn eden ti rel y

by the ch an cel lo r’s fo ot , bu t we ar e in st eadbo un d b y pr eced en t t o t he ex te ntth atth ere i s p rece de nt . 2

And it is a g ood thing that r ules of pre cede nt apply

here . Even B lackstone, who was 2 something of

a fa n of equity , war

ned that: [T] he liberty

of considering a ll cases in an e quitable light, must not be indulg ed too fa r; lest thereby

we de stroy

all law, and le ave thedecision of e very question entirely

in the brea st of the judg e. And law , without equity , though ha rd and disagree able, is much more desirable for the public g ood, than equity without law: which would make e very judge a leg islator, and introduce most infinit e conf usion; as there w ould then be almost as many differ ent rules of

action laid down in our c ourts, as there are differ ence s of ca pacity and sentiment in the human mind. 1 Wil liam Blac kstone, Commentaries *62; see also 1 J oseph Story , Commentaries on Equity J urisprudenc e § 19, at 16 ( 13th ed. 1886) (“I f indee d, a Court of Equity in Eng land did possess the unbounded jurisdiction which ha s been thus g ener ally ascribed to it . . . it would be the most g iga ntic in its sway , and the most formidable instrument of arbitra ry power , that could well be devised.” ).

6Bi nd in g p rece de ntha s l ai d d own two requi rem en ts th ata fed eral habe as

pe ti ti on er m

us t m eetbe fo re a co urt ca n g ran t h im equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e § 22 44 (d ) st atut e o f li m it at io ns . In the Supr em e Co urt’s wo rd s: “ [A] peti ti on er i s en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g o nl y if h e sh ows (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 nary cir cu m st an ce s to odinhi s way.” Hol land , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 62 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; Lawre nc e v . Flo rid a, 54 9 U.S. 32 7, 3 36 , 12 7 S .Ct. 1 07 9, 1 08 5 (2 00 7) ; s ee al so Ch av ez, 6 47 F.3dat 1 06 6, 10 68 . The Supr em e Co urt h as als o i ns tru ct edus th at“ a g ard enva rie ty clai m of
ex cu sabl e n eg le ctsu ch as asi m pl e m is cal cu la ti on th atlea ds a lawy er t o m is s a fil in g d ead li ne do es no t warran t equi tabl e to ll in g.” Hol la nd , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 64 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Lawre nc e, 54 9 U.S. at33 6– 37 , 12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 (“ Att orne y

mis 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

inth 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.”) ; s ee al so Ch av ez, 6 47 F.3dat 1 06 6. Thi s ca se in vo lv es , inHol la nd ’s lan gu ag e, “ a g ard enva rie ty clai m of
ex cu sabl e n eg le ct ,” ari si ng fro m “ a si m pl e m is cal cu la ti on th atlea ds a la wy er t o m is s a f il in g d ead li ne .” See Ho ll an d, 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 4 (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. The att orne y s wh o fi le d the st at e co ll at eral pe ti ti on for Hut ch in so n m is un de rs to od wha t § 22 44 (d )(1 )(A)’s “ ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew” m ean t 7whe n re adag ai ns t Supr em e Co urt Ru le 13 .3. The factth atth ey ou gh t t o h av e kn own be tt er d oe s n otjus ti fy equi tabl e to ll in g. The at to rn ey s wh o m is cal cu la te d 3 th e d ead li ne forfil in g i n t he Lawren ce ca se di d s o b ecau se th ey were n otaware o f well -s et tl edlaw t ha t s ho ul d h av e p rev en te d a ny con fu si on on th ei r pa rt. Se e Lawren ce, 5 49 U.S. at 3 36 –3 7, 1 27 S.Ct . at 1 08 5. Yet , th e Supr em e Co urt s ti ll he ldth atequi tabl e to ll in g was no t ju st ifi edinth atcas e b ecau se “ [a]tt 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.” Id. at33 6, 12 7 S .Ct. at10 85 . If att orne y m is cal cu la ti on , erro r, orne gl ig en ce were en ou gh for equi tabl e to ll in g, the § 2 24 4( d) st atut e o f li m it at io ns wou ldbe to ll edto th e b rin k of ex ti nc ti on be cau se in pra ct ic al ly every case wher e th ere i s a f ai lu re t o m eetth e fil in g d ead li ne anatt orne y is at f au lt . See Ch av ez, 6 47 F.3dat 1 07 1 (“ Invi rtu al ly
Any implicit criticism by

us of Hutchinson’s attorney s for their mistake is tempered by 3 awa rene ss that a pane l of this Court made exactly the same mistake a

year -and- a-ha lf befor e those two attorney s did. The opinion in Diaz v. S ecr etar y for the D epar

tment of Correc tions, 362 F.3d 698 ( 11th Cir. 2004), states that “[t] he 90-da y period in which D iaz could have f iled a petition in the United States Supreme Court expired on J une 19, 1997, at whic h time the clock beg an to run on the one -year limit ation for the f

iling of ha

beas pe titions .” I d. at 699. The opinion in that case shows, howe ver, that J une 19, 1997 wa s 90 day s after the state a

ppellate court’s ma

ndate ha d issued and not 90 day s after its opini on had issued, which w as 16 day s earlier. See id. We do not know if the Diaz opini on confuse d Hutchinson’s counse l or if they wer e eve n awa

re of it. W hat we do know

is that no one is perfe ct; we a ll make mistakes.

8ev ery cas e whe re the is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g c om es up on e o r m or e at to rn ey s

sh ou ldha ve act edwith m or e d is pa tc h, b utm or e th anth atis requi red .”). Hut ch in so n a rg ue s tha t m or e is in vo lv edhe re tha n s im pl e atto rn ey

erro r or m is cal cu la ti on . The “ m or e” tha t h e co nt en ds is in vo lv edis setou t i n t he affi da vi t th athe fil edin th e d is tri ctco urt i n re sp on se to th e m ot io n t o d is m is s h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on as u nt im el y . (Thataffi da vi t i s re pr oduc edinful l as App en di x A t o th is op in io n.) Inhi s af

fid av it , Hut ch in so n s ta te s t ha t h e rep eat ed ly exp res se d t o th e two att orne y s wh o wer e rep res en ti ng hi m hi s co nc ernab ou t the st atut e o f li m it at io ns , andon Sep te m be r 22 , 20 05 he to ldth em “po in t b la nkan d i n n o un cert ai n t erm s t o ‘eit he r fi le m y rul e 3 .85 1 m ot io n i m

m ed ia te ly or I wil l di sc ha rg e y ouan d fi le itm y se lf.’” App . A ¶ 15 . On th atoc cas io n, Hu tc hi ns on reco un ts , bo th att orne y s p ro m is edhi m th atth ey “ wou ldfil e th e m ot io n o n o r be fo re Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 05 , th ou gh th ey wentonto say tha t we h ad90 da y s af te r th e m an da te was i ss ue d b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, s o t he rul e 3 .85 1 m ot io n was no t ac tu al ly due un ti l ‘Octo be r 20 th .’ ” Id . Accor di ng to Hut ch in so n, h e ag ai n to ldhi s t wo at to rn ey s tha t i f th ey di d n otfil e th e Ru le 3.8 51 m ot io n “ imm ed ia te ly” he wou ldfil e ithi m se lf b ecau se he kn ew th atwas “ th e o nl y way [he ] co ul d pr ev en t the on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d fr om ex pi rin g o n [h is ] 22 54 pe ti ti on .” Id
. The att orne y s “ gu aran te ed ” h im th atth ey wou ldfil e th e st at e co urt m ot io n “ no 9la te r th anSep te m be r 28 , 20 05 .” Id . Butth ey di d n otdo th at . Ins te ad , th ey fil ed th e st at e co urt m ot io n o n Oct ob er 2 0, 2 00 5. 4 Hut ch in so n a ll eg es th atbu t fo r hi s at to rn ey s’ pro m is e to fil e b y Sep te m be r 28 , 20 05 he “ wou ldha ve di sc ha rg edth em an d fi le d apro se r

ul e 3 .85 1 m ot io n t o pr ev en t 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (d )(1 )’s [s ic ] on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d fr om ex pi rin g.” App . A ¶ 16 . He att ach edto hi s af fid av it“ facs im il es of t he Not ic e o f Pro Se St atus an d R

ul e 3 .85 1 M ot io n t ha t [h e] woul d h av e fi le d o n S ep te m be r 23 , 20 05 , bu t fo r [the att orne y s’] pro m is e.” Id . Tho se two facs im il es are ea ch da te d Sep te m be r 23 , 20 05 an d s ig ne d b y Hut ch in so n, i nd ic at in g t ha t h e was read y , wil li ng , andab le to fil e h is m ot io n t o p ro ceedpro se andhi s R ul e 3 .85 1 m ot io n on or s oo n a fte r th atda te an d wo ul d h av e d on e so bu t fo r hi s at to rn ey s’ pro m is es ,

In his affidavit Hutchinson states that befor e the statute of limit ations ran he met with 4 attorney Br ody three times, App. A ¶¶ 7, 10, 12, w ith attorney Hazen four

times, id. ¶¶ 6, 8, 11, 13, and with both of them on two other oc casions, id. ¶¶ 14, 15. H e states that during one of his meeting s with Brody

alone, more than five months bef ore the limit ations period ra n, Br ody was “visibly disoriented and sme lled strong ly of alc ohol,” id. ¶ 12, and during a nother mee ting twoand-a -half months bef

ore the limit ations period ra n Br ody was “ sweating pr ofusely and smelled of alc ohol,” id. ¶ 14. Hutchinson also say s that on that later oc casion Hazen told himthat Br ody was “ just having a

lot of persona l problems.” I d. But ther e is no alleg ation that Br ody ’s impairment, if any , cause d the er ror in miscalc ulating the due date . See Chave z, 647 F.3d at 1071 (holdingthat equitable tolling w as not appropriate whe re “ [t ]here ar e . . . no alleg ations at all that [st ate post-c onviction counsel’s] health had a ffe cted his ability to handle the c ase up to the time he withdre w or that it had pre vented him from f iling the motion for statepost-conviction relief sooner” ). Nor ha s Hutchinson alleg ed that attorne y Hazen, who a ctually

signe d and filed the Rule 3.851 motion in st ate c ourt on Octobe r 20, 2005, wa s ever impaired in any

way . 10whi chwere n otke pt . 5

Hut ch in so n kne w, at l eas t b y Octo be r 19 , 20 05 , th athi s at to rn ey s h adno t fil edhi s s ta te Ru le 3.8 51 m ot io n b y th e Sep te m

be r 30 , 20 05 de ad li ne (orth e Sep te m be r 28 , 20 05 de ad li ne , as h e h adcal cu la te d i t). We kn ow t ha t Hu tc hi ns on kn ew th atbe cau se Octo be r 19 , 20 05 is th e d at e Hut ch in so n s ig ne d, u nd er p en al ty of pe rjury, the ve rif

ic at io n o n t he Ru le 3.8 51 m ot io n (wh ic h o ne of t he att orne y s fil edinst at e co urt the ne xtda y ). Ju sttwen ty-sev enda y s ea rli er h e h adto ldhi s 6 two att orne y s t ha t fi li ng th e Ru le 3.8 51 m ot io n i n s ta te co urt b y Sep te m be r 28 , 20 05 was n eces sa ry

to pre ve ntth e fed eral fil in g d ead li ne fro m expi rin g. Se e App
.
Hutchinson’s af

fidavit also states that on thre e occ asions, the last of which w as Jul y 14, 5 2005, he aske d his attorney s to file a “she ll-brief” in state court in orde r to preve nt the time from runningwhile they

investiga ted his case and prepare d the re al motion for state c ollatera l relief. App. A ¶¶

11, 13, 14. But attorney

Hazen told him then that a state c ourt “shell brie f didn’t provide the pr otection that it used to.” I d. ¶ 11. It appea rs that Hazen wa s corr ect a bout that. The re spondent’s brief

in this case informs us that in 2001 Florida’s Rule 3.851 wa s amende d to prohibit the filing of

shell motions, s ee F la. R. Crim. P . 3.851(e) (1)( D); Gonzalez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1017, 1034 & n.9 (F la. 2008), a nd that shell motions are stricke n by the Florida cour

ts and no longe r ca

n be used to mee t filing de adlines. In his reply brief, Hutchinson does not take issue with any of that information. Although Hutchinson’s aff idavit and the date of his signature on the f ederal habe as 6 petition establish beyond dispute that he knewhis attorney s had missed the dea dline for f iling his state petition, our sepa

rate ly writingcolleague asse rts that Hutchinson had no re ason to file his fede ral ha beas pe tition unt il nearly

four year s later be cause he re lied on his attorney s’ assura nces that they wer e doingwhat wa s nece ssary to protect his fe dera l habea s rights. See ConcurringOp. at 25–26. That asse rtion is belied by Hutchinson’s own swor

n statements, which e stablish that he knew his attorney s had missed the dea dline, yet for year s after rea liz ing that he still m ade no attempt to file in fede ral c ourt the collate ral pe tition he had alre ady draf ted. Howe ver judg es may fee l about the law a

pplicable to this or any

other a rea , we have no license to rewrite the fa cts of a case . 11A ¶ 15 . AndHut ch in so n h adalr eady dra fte d, d at ed , andha d re ady to fil e a co m pl et e p et it io n s etti ng ou t al l o f th e cl ai m s tha t h e wan te d t o ra is e. Id . ¶¶ 15 –1 6. By sim

pl y ch an gi ng th e n am e o f th e co urt i n wh ic h t ha t p et it io n was to be fil ed , Hut ch in so n h im se lf c ou ldha ve fil edhi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on on or s oo n aft er Oct ob er 2 0, 2 00 5, wh ic h wo ul d h av e b een jus t twen ty day s af te r th e ex pi rat io n o f th e o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d. 7 Yet Hu tc hi ns on di d n ot hi ng of t he so rt f orne arl y fou r y ears . He di d n otfil e hi s p ro se h ab eas pe ti ti on in fed eral co urt unt il Ju ly 24, 2 00 9, wh ic h was lo ng aft er th e st at e tr ia l co urt h adde ni edhi s R ul e 3 .85 1 m ot io n o n J anua ry 3, 2 00 8, an d was al so aft er the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h adaffi rm edth atde ni al on Ju ly 9, 20 09
.
Had Hutc hinson done so, the fe dera l district court could have held his fede ral ha beas 7 petition in abeyance until his eff orts to secure state collate ral re lief we re c ompleted. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278–79, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Our c olleague’s sug g estion that a district court mig ht dismi ss such a pe tition wit hout abusingits discretion is contradicte d by the only authority she cites f

or that proposition, which is the Rhines decision. See Concur ringOp. at 26 n.21. The Supreme Court stated in Rhines that: [I ]tlikely would be an a

buse of discr etion for a

district court to deny

a stay and to dismiss a mix ed petition if the petitioner ha d g ood cause for his fa ilure to exhaust, his unex hausted c laims are pote ntially meritorious, and ther e is no indication that the petitioner e ng ag ed in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. In such circ umstances, the district c ourt should stay , rathe r than dismiss, the mix ed petition. See Lundy , 455 U.S., at 522, 102 S.Ct . 1198 (the total exhaustion require ment was not intended to “ unrea sonably impair the prisoner ’s right to relief ”). In such a c ase, the petitioner’s intere st in obtaining fe dera l reviewof his claims outweighs the competinginterests in finality and spee dy

resolution of fede ral pe titions
. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278, 125 S.C t. at 1535. 12Mo re t o t he po in t, Hu tc hi ns on wait edto fil e h is fed eral pe ti ti on forth ree years,

ni ne m on th s an d fi ve da y s— a to ta l o f 1,3 74 da y s— aft er h e le arn edon Octo be r 19 , 20 05 th athi s at to rn ey s h adm is se d t he de ad li ne fora fi li ng inst at e co urt tha t wou ldha ve to ll edth e fed eral li m it at io ns pe rio d. Th ere i s n ot hi ng inHut ch in so n’s affi da vi t o r in hi s b rie fs to ex pl ai n h is de la y of n earl y fou r y ears . Nothi ng . W e n eedno t d eci de whet he r Hut ch in so n h as est ab li sh edth atan ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ce s to odinth e way of h is m eet in g t he § 2 24 4( d) fil in g de ad li ne , bec au se he ha s n otcarr ie d h is bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t h e p ur su edhi s rig ht s d il ig en tl y . See Ho ll an d, 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 2; Lawren ce, 5 49 U.S. at 3 36 , 12 7 S.Ct . at 1 08 5; see als o C ha ve z, 64 7 F .3dat 1 06 6, 1 06 8. Al th ou ghHut ch in so n’s affi da vi t m ay

sh ow t ha t h e d il ig en tl y

att em pt edto have hi s s ta te co ll at eral m ot io n fil edinti m e to gi ve hi m

th e b en efi t o f § 2 24 4( d) st atut ory to ll in g, i t d oe s n otsh ow th aton ce tha t o pp ortu ni ty w as m is se d h e p ur su edhi s fe de ral rig ht s d il ig en tl y . In st ead , hi s af

fid av itan d t he ot he r m at eri al s h e h as subm it te d s ho w th athe ha d i n ha nda pe ti ti on th athe co ul d h av e re- labe le d a ndfil edpro se i n fe de ral co urt withi n t hr ee wee ks aft er the on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d ra n, b uthe wait edth reean d- th ree- qu art er y ears be fo re h e fi le d apro se f ed eral habe as pe ti ti on . Thatis no t reas on ab le di li ge nc e. Hut ch in so n’s l en gt hy del ay infil in g h is pro se f

ed eral habe as pe ti ti onst an ds 13in st arkco ntras t t o the pe ti ti on er’s d il ig en ce i n t he Hol la ndcas e. The S up rem e

Co urt s tre ss edth at“ th e ver y d ay th atHol la nddi sc ov eredth athi s AEDPA cl oc k ha d e xp ire d due to [hi s at to rn ey ’s] fai li ng s, Ho ll an d p rep aredhi s o wn h ab eas pe ti ti on pro se a ndpro m

pt ly file d i t wi thth e Dis tri ctCo urt.” Ho ll an d, 1 30 S.Ct . at 25 65 (em ph as is in ori gi na l). Ho ll an d’s fi li ng of h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on th e d ay aft er h e le arn edth at“ hi s AEDPA cl oc k h adex pi reddu e to [hi s at to rn ey ’s] fai li ng s” m ay

be “ m ax im

um feas ib le di li ge nc e,” i d., wh ic h i s n otrequi red
. Bu t Hu tc hi ns on ’s fai lu re t o d o a nyth in g t o g ethi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on fil edfor
ne arl y fou r y ears aft er h e le arn edth atth e AEDPA clo ckha d ru n o utdu e to hi s at to rn ey s’ m is cal cu la ti on is no t ev en“ reas on ab le di li ge nc e,” wh ic h i s re qu ire d, i d. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atHut ch in so n was no t en ti tl ed to equi tabl e to ll in g o f 1,3 93 da y s. AFFIRMED.

14BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , con cu rri ng inth e res ul t o nl y :

In it ia ll y , I di sa gr ee wi th th e m ajor it y ’s ho ld in g tha t Hu tc hi ns on was n ot reas on ab ly dil ig en t i n p ur su in g h is cla im s. He d idev erythi ng an y reas on ab le cl ie ntwou lddo to ass ur e th athi s l awy ers pro te ct edhi s i nt eres ts , in cl ud in g im pl or in g h is lawyers t o fi le hi s p os t-c on vi ct io n p le ad in gs ina ti m el y m an ne r. The m ajor it y ’s su gg es ti on th atHut ch in so n s ho ul d h av e fi le d apl aceh ol de r pr o s e habe as pe ti ti on is si m

pl y no t l og ic al when Hut ch in so n was rep res en te d b y lawyers who were as su rin g h im

th athi s cl ai m s wer e b ei ng pu rs ue d. Howev er, n o m at te r ho w di li ge ntHut ch in so n was or c ou ldha ve be en , as t he la w st an ds to da y , th is Co urt s ti ll co ul d n otgra ntHut ch in so n t he rel ie f of equi tabl e to ll in g b ecau se th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth at , no twi th st an di ng hi s d il ig en ce, a de fen da ntis res po ns ib le foran d m us t b ear t he co ns eque nc es of h is lawyer’ s ne gl ig en ce. See Lawre nc e, 54 9 U.S. at33 6

– 37 ; Co le m anv. Th om ps on , 50 1 U.S. 1 72 2, 7 53

– 54 (19 91 ); s ee al so Mart in ez v . Ry an , 56 6 U.S. _

__, __ _ (2 01 2) (sl ip op ., at 7 ); Ho ll an d, 1 30 S. Ct. at25 63
. The ho ld in gs of Lawr en ce an d C ol em anare p rem is edon th e co nt inue d

In order to merit equitable tolling, a petitioner must establish “(1) that he has be en 1 pursuinghis rights dilig ently , and (2) that some extraordinary circ umstance stood in his way .” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S.

__ _ , ___,130 S. Ct . 2549, 2562 (2010) ( internal quotation marks omitted). A lawyer’ s neg lige nce doe s not constitute an “extraordinar y circ umstance.”See id. at 2564 (citingL awr ence v. Florida , 549 U.S. 327, 336 (2007)). H ere , wher e Hutchinson’s la wyers neg lige ntly

filed his state post-convic tion petition t oo late to statutorily toll the feder al habe as filing de adline, their ne g lige nce doe s not constitute an “extraordinar y circ umstance.”ap pl ic at io n t o d eat h ro w in m at es of t he ag en cy th eo ry of t he lawyer-cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p. Se e, e.g ., Map le s v . Tho m as , 56 5 U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 32 S. Ct. 9 12 , 92 2 (2 01 2) (ex pl ai ni ng th atCo le m an ’s ho ld in g was ba se d o n “ well -s et tl edpri nc ip le s of ag en cy law” th at“ th e p rin ci pa l b ears th e ri skof n eg li ge ntco nduc t o n t he pa rt o f hi s ag en t.”) . Howev er, as am pl ifi edbe lo w, no ne of t he ke y ass um pt io ns un de rlyin g t he ap pl ic at io n o f anag en cy rel at io ns hi p t o ade ath- se nt en cedcli en t
an d h is lawyer are v al idin th e p os t-c on vi ct io n c on te xt . W he n t he law al read y 2
reco gn iz es equi tabl e ex cep ti on s t o h ol di ng a cl ie ntres po ns ib le forhi s l awy er’s act io ns un de r ci rcu m st an ces with l es s dras ti c co ns eque nc es , an e xc ep ti on sh ou ld al so be m ad e fo r de ath ro w in m at es so th atth ei r la wy er’s n eg li ge nc e d oe s n ot pr ecl ud e fed eral rev ie w of c on st itut io na l cl ai m s.

I. Agen cy

Pri nc ip le s an d Dea th Ro w Inm at es An ag en cy

rel at io ns hi p e xi st s t o p erm iton e p ers onto acton be ha lf o f
an ot he r. Gene ral ly the pri nc ip al ch oo se s an ag en t t o a cton hi s b eh al f fo r a

3

See Adam L iptak, For eword, Ag ency and Equity : Why

do we blame clients for the ir 2 lawyers’ mistakes? , 110 Mich. L . R. 875, 875 (2012) (statingthat “clients a nd lawyers f

it the ag ency model imperfe ctly . Ag ency law is built on the conce pts of fre e choic e, conse nt, and loyalty , and it is not unusual to find lawyer- client re lationships in which some or all of these elements a

re missing .”). See 1 F loyd R. Mechem Tr eatise on the L aw of Ag ency § 80 (2d ed. 1914) (“It is the 3 g ener al rule that an ag ency may be cr eate d for the pe rfor

mance of any

lawful a ct, and that whateve r a pe rson may

lawfully do, if ac ting in his own right and in his own behalf, hemay lawfully deleg ate to an a g ent.”)
. 16sp eci fic purp os e, an d i n atra di ti on al lawyer-cl ie ntrel at io ns hi p, a c li en t h ire s a 4 la wy er t o re pr es en t h im

in a di sc ret e le ga l m at te r. The l eg it im acy of tra ns ferr in g res po ns ib il it y

forth e la wy er’s n eg li ge nc e fro m th e la wy er t o t he cli en t i s b as edon se ve ral ass um

pt io ns th atun de rp in th e ag en cy rel at io ns hi p. Fi rs t, i t i s as su m edth at th e cl ie ntvo lu nt ari ly cho os es hi s l awy er fo r co m pe te nc e, di li ge nc e, an d l oyalty . 5 Seco nd , itis ass um edth atth e cl ie ntha s t he ab il it y to di rectth e act io ns of t he la wy er or, a t the ve ry

lea st , th atco ns tantan d a de qu at e o pp ortu ni ti es ex is t fo r 6
co m m un ic at io n b etweenth e cl ie ntan d h is lawyer. 7 Bu t the se ass um

pt io ns do no t ap pl y

to in m at es onde ath ro w, alm os t al l o f who m do no t ch oo se th ei r la wy ers . Ins te adth ey m us t d ep en d o n app oi nt edor p ro bo no vo lu nt eer c ou ns el who to o o fte n l ackex pe rti se inpo st -co nv ic ti on de ath pe na lty rep res en ta ti on . See, e.g ., Map le s, 1 32 S. Ct. at91 8. Co ns eque nt ly, th e rep res en ta ti on pro vi de d i n s ta te an d fe de ral po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs is to o

See Restateme nt (Second) of Ag ency § 1 (1958) ( “Ag ency

is the fiduciar

y relation 4 which re sults from the manifestation of c onsent by one per son to another that the othe r shall ac t on his behalf a

nd subject to his control, and c onsent by the other so to ac t.”). See Model Rules of Prof’ l Conduct R. 1.1, 1.3 (2009). 5 See id. R. 1.2(a)
. 6 See id. R. 1.4. 7 17of

te n i na de qu at e. Forex am pl e, fo rm er Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt J us ti ce Raul 8 Can te ro st at edth at“ so m e o f th e [ap po in te d] co un se l h av e li tt le or n o e xp eri en ce i n de ath p en al ty cases . They ha ve no t ra is edth e ri gh t i ss ue s . . . [an d] [s]om et im es th ey rai se to o m an y

is su es an d s ti ll ha ve n’t ra is edth e ri gh t o ne s.” Flo rid a 9 Supr em e Co urt J us ti ce Ba rb ara P ari en te ha s al so st at edth at“ [a]s fo r [ap po in te d]
co un se l, we h av e o bs erv edde fic ie nc ie s an d we wo ul d d efi ni te ly end or se th e n eed fo r in crea se d s ta nd ard s fo r [ap po in te d] co un se l, as well as aco nt in ui ng syste m of

See Jordan M. Steiker, ImprovingReprese ntation in Capital Cases: Establishi ngthe 8 Right B aselines in F eder al Habe as to Promote Structural Refor m Wi thin St ates, 34 Am. J. C rim. L . 293, 297–300 (2007) ( discussing the “crisis” in the quality of re prese ntation in both the trial and post-convic tion stage s of ca pital case s); see a lso J on B. G old & L isa Gre enman, Update on the Cost and Quality

of De fense Represe ntation in Fede ral De ath Penalty Cases 87–88 (2010) (discussingrepe rcussions of inade quate r epre sentation in fede ral ha beas c ontext ); Americ an B ar Association, Evaluating F airne ss and Acc urac y in State Death Pena lty

Sy stems: The Alabama Death Penalty

Assessment Report 97 (June 2006) (“ Although a necdote s about inadequate defe nses longhave be en par t of trial cour

t lore, a c omprehe nsive 2000 study shows definitively that poor re prese ntation has bee n a major c ause of serious er

rors in ca pital case s as well as a major fa ctor in the wr ong ful conviction and se ntencingto death of innoc ent def endants.” ); Americ an B ar A ssociation, EvaluatingFa irness and A ccuracy in State Death Pena lty

Sy stems: The Ge org ia Dea

th Penalty Assessment Report iii (J anuar y 2006) (“ The State of G eorg ia is virtually alone in not providingindige nt defe ndants sentenc ed to death with counsel for state habea s proce eding s. The lac k of counse l on state habe as . . . cr eate s a situation where this critical constitutional safeguard is so under mined as to be inef

fec tive.”); Ame rica

n Ba r Associa tion, EvaluatingFa irness and A ccur acy in State Death Pena lty

Sy stems: The Florida

Death Penalty Assessment Report iv (Septembe r 2006) ( “F lorida’s statutory qualification requireme nts for capital c ollatera l reg istry

attorney s fall short of the r equire ments of the AB A Guidelines . . . a nd are insufficient to ensur e qualifie d counsel for ever y death- sentenc ed inmate.” ). See Mar c Caputo, Jus tice B lasts L awyers Ove r De ath Row Appea ls, Miami Herald, Jan. 9 28, 2005, at 1B
. 18sc reen in g a ndm on it or in g t o e ns ur e m in im um lev el s o f co m

pe te nc e.” Lik ewis e,

1 0 Alab am a’s de ath ro w rep res en ta ti on su ffer s fr om th e sa m e p ro bl em s. Th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atno t o nl y do es Alab am a se t “ lo w eli gi bi li ty requ ire m en ts fo r la wy ers ap po in te d t o re pr es en t i nd ig en t capi ta l d efen da nt s attri al ,” Map le s, 13 2 S . Ct. at91 7, i t i s “ [n ]early alo ne ” in no t “ gu aran te e[i ng ] rep res en ta ti on to in di ge ntcap it al de fen da nt s i n p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs ,” id . at 9 18 . Ins te ad , Alab am a p rimaril y

rel ie s o n t he effo rts of o ut -o f-s ta te vo lu nt eer l awy ers to ha nd le po st -co nv ic ti on rep res en ta ti on . Id. The ag en cy

an al og y als o b reak s d own be cau se de ath ro w in m at es ha ve a li m it edab il it y

to co m m un ic at e wit h t he ir l awy ers . Pris on s ar e o fte n l oc at edin 1 1 far- flu ng pl aces th atare d iff ic ul t fo r lawy ers to reac h a ndoft enth e lawy ers are n ot ev enlo cat edwithi n t he same sta te as t he ir d eat h ro w cli en ts . Add it io na ll y , in m at es ha ve res tri ct edacce ss to ph on es , th e in te rn et , andlaw l ib rari es . In Lawren ce an d Ho ll an d, i t was th e la ckof a cces s t o wo rdpro ces si ng syste m s an d a

See Ga ry Blakenship, Reg istry

L awyers De fende d at Commit tee Me eting , Fla. B ar 1 0 News, A pril 1, 2005, at 5. “[A] habeas petitioner’ s limi ted ability to communicate with the outside world is a 1 1 barrier to his ability

to diligently

reque st information from, or monitor the c onduct of, his defa ulting attorne y .” See Ma rni von Wil pert, Comment, Holland v. Florida: A Prisoner’s L ast Chance , Attorney

Error , and the Antiter

rorism and Ef

fec tive Dea

th Penalty Act’s One -Ye ar Statute of L imitations Period for F eder al Habe as Corpus Review, 79 F ordham L . Rev. 1429, 1469 (2010). 19la w li br ary th atha m pe redth e p et it io ne rs ’ ab il it y to co m m un ic at e wit h the ir at to rn ey s. See Bri ef fo r Pet it io ne rs at 1 1 n .25 , Lawren ce, 5 49 U.S. 32 6 (No . 05
- 88 20 ); P et it io ne r’s Bri ef o n t he Meri ts at 2 n.1 ., Hol la nd , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 54 9 (No . 09
- 53 27 ). In Al ab am a, de ath ro w in m at es ’ ph on e cal ls are l im it edto twen ty-fiv e m in ut es , with p ris on off

ic ia ls de te rm in in g the sch edul e an d fr eque nc y of p ho ne co nv ers at io ns . Acco rd in g t o Geo rg ia ’s in m at e o rie nt at io n h an db oo k, p ho ne cal ls 1 2 in Geor gi a p ris on s ar e li m it edto fif te enm in ut es . 1 3 Mo reo ve r, if ade ath ro w in m at e is he ldina supe r-m ax im um sec ur ity pri so n ora se gr eg at io n h ou si ng un it(“ SHU”), wh ic h m os t ar e, th es e b arri ers m ay be ev en m or e d iff ic ul t t o o ve rco m e. Fir st , acce ss to ba si c rea di ng an d wri ti ng m at eri al s m ay be en ti rel y

res tri ct ed , dep en di ng on ho w m uc h o f a s ecu rit y

th reatth e in m at e is de em edto be . See, e.g ., Beardv. Ba nk s, 5 48 U.S. 52 1 (2 00 6) (up ho ld in g p ris on reg ul at io n t ha t d en ie s ac ces s t o wri tt enm at eri al to vi ol en t i nm at es ). Seco nd , co m m un ic at io n wi th th e o ut si de worl d b eco m es ev enm or e ch al le ng in g a ndm or e res tri ct ed . “ Invi rtu al ly every sta te , dea th -ro w in m at es are ‘lo ck eddo wn’ inth ei r cel l fo r m os t o f th e d ay , hav e li tt le or n o a cces s t o e du cat io na l o r ot he r pr is on

Alabama Depa rtment of Corre ctions, Inmate Te lephone Sy stem Admin. Reg. 431 § 1 2 V(K) (2005). Geor g ia Depa

rtment of Corre ctions, Orientation Ha ndbook for Of

fende rs 64, ava ilable 1 3 at http://www.dcor.state.g a.us/pdf/GDC_Inmate_Ha ndbook.pdf. 20pr og ram s, an d e xp eri en ce g reatis ol at io n a ndlo ss of r el at io ns hi ps .” As Jus ti ce 1 4 Ken ne dy has ob se rv ed , “ in carc erat io n a t [asupe r-m ax im um sec ur it y pri so n] is syno nym ou s wi th ex tre m e is ol at io n.” W il ki ns onv. Au st in , 54 5 U.S. 2 09 , 21 4 (2 00 5) . Fin al ly, th e p sycho lo gi cal effec ts of s pe nd in g e xt en de d p eri od s i n s ol it ary co nf in em en t— co m

m on ly kno wn as SHU syndr om e—m ay im pa ir a n i nm at e’s
m en ta l capabi li ti es to th e ex te ntth athi s ac ti ve pa rti ci pa ti on inli ti ga ti on be co m es im po ss ib le
. 1 5 Fi na ll y , eve n i f de ath ro w in m at es were g iv enth e ab il it y to acce ss th ei r at to rn ey s wi th ou t the se form id ab le ob st acl es , m os t d eath ro w in m at es lac k t he sk il ls an d i nt el le ctto supe rv is e, di rector p ol ic e th e act iv it ie s o f th ei r la wy ers in th e way th atth e ag en cy

pa rad ig m

ass um es . “ Cap it al in m at es alm os t u ni fo rm ly are in di ge nt , andoft enil li te rat e an d u ne du cat ed .” The d an ge rs of t he se 1 6 sh ortc om in gs are al l the m or e p ro no un cedinth e co nt ex t o f fed eral habe as
J ohn H. B lume, Killing the Willing: “Voluntee rs,” Suicide a nd Competency , 103 Mich. 1 4 L . Rev. 939, 966 (2004). See g enerally

CraigHane y , Mental He alth I ssues in L ong -term Solitary and 1 5 “Supermax ” Confinement, 49 Crime & Delinq. 124, 130-141 (2003) (desc ribingthe SHU sy ndrome a nd the long -term e ffe cts of solitary confine ment on prison inmates); Stuart Gra ssian, Psy chiatric Effe cts of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash U. J .L . & Pol’y 325, 333–45 (2006) (same) ; see a lso Mill er e x . rel. Jones v. St ewa rt, 231 F.3d 1248, 1252 ( 9th Cir. 2000) (“[I ]tis well ac cepte d that conditions such as those pre sent in SMU I I. . . can c ause psycholog ical decompe nsation to the point that indi viduals may become imcompetent.”)
. Roscoe C. Howa

rd, Jr., The Def

unding of the Post Convi ction Def

ense O rg anizations 1 6 as a D enial of the Right to Counsel, 98 W. Va. L . Rev. 863, 902 (1996). 21pr oc eed in gs , “ th e u ni qu e an d c om pl ex na ture” o f whi ch th e Supr em e Co urt h as lo ng reco gn iz ed . See Mc Farl an d v . Sco tt , 51 2 U.S. 8 49 , 85 5 (1 99 4) . “ [T]he
co m pl ex it y of o urjuri sp ru de nc e in th is aream ak es itun li ke ly tha t capi ta l de fen da nt s wi ll be ab le to fil e su cces sf ul pe ti ti on s fo r co ll at eral rel ie f wit ho utth e as si st an ce o f pe rs on s l earn edin th e law.” Id. at85 5– 56 (in te rn al alt erat io ns om it te d) ; quo ti ng Mu rray v. Giarr at an o, 4 92 U.S. 1, 2 8 (1 98 9) (Ken ne dy, J., join ed by O’ Co nn or , J., co nc urrin g i n ju dg m en t); see als o i d., at28 (St ev en s, J ., join edby Bren na n, M ars ha ll , andBla ckm un , JJ ., di ss en ti ng ) (“ [T]his Co urt’s d eat h p en al ty juri sp ru de nc e u nque st io nabl y is di ffi cu ltev enfora tr ai ne d l awy er t o m as te r.”). Giv enit s ac kn owl ed gm en t o f th e ch al le ng es habe as pro ceed in gs pre se ntto la wy ers , itis no t s ur

pr is in g t ha t the Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y no te d i n M art in ez, supr a, at__

_ (s li p o p., at9), t ha t “ [t]he pri so ne r, un le arn edinth e la w, m ay no t co m pl y with t he Sta te ’s pro cedur al rul es or m ay mis ap pr eh en d the subs ta nt iv e de ta il s o f fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al law.” Al th ou gh Mart in ez d eal t s pe ci fic al ly w it h th e ab il it y

of apri so ne r to pu rs ue a po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on inst at e co urt, the re can be no do ub t tha t the same lim it at io ns are p res en t i n t he fed eral po st -co nv ic ti on co nt ex t as well
. 1 7

See Ha lbert v. Michig an, 545 U.S. 605, 621 (2005) ( “Six ty -eight perc ent of the state 1 7 prison population did not complete high sc hool, and many lack the most basic liter acy skills. . . . Seven out of ten inmate s fall in the lowest two out of five levels of litera cy –marke d by

an 22Mo reo ve r, a h ab eas pe ti ti on er i s n otpe rm it te d t o i nt erfe re wi th hi s l awy er’s

de te rm in at io ns reg ard in g wh ic h c la im s t o ra is e. See J on es v. Ba rn es , 46 3 U.S. 74 5, 7 51 (19 83 ). Even if acli en t wan te d t o c orrecthi s l awy er’s m is ta ke s, h e wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto do so . A pri so ne r do es no t h av e a ri gh t t o fi le pro se pl ead in gs whi le rep res en te d b y co un se l. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Gwiazd zi ns ki , 14 1 F.3 d 7 84 , 78 7 (7 th Cir . 19 98 ). Co urts rou ti ne ly decl in e to co ns id er p ro se pl ead in gs when anin m at e is rep res en te d b y co un se l. See Down s v . McNei l, 5 20 F.3 d 1 31 1, 1 32 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (“ [E]vena sa vv y pe ti ti on er, wh o m ay

see th e cl oc k ru nn in g o uton hi s h ab eas ti m e, can on ly cajole [or ] pl eadwith h is co un se l t o fil e th e p et it io n t im el y .”) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; s ee al so 11 th Cir . R. 25 -1 (“ Whe n a pa rty is re pr es en te d b y

co un se l, the cle rkm ay

no t ac cep t fi li ng s fr om

th e pa rty.”). 1 8 The se m an y

ob st acl es ren de r th e p rin ci pa l-a ge ntrel at io ns hi p i napp li cab le in

inability to do such basic tasks a s write a brief letter to expl ain an e rror

on a cr edit card bill, use a bus schedule, or

state in writingan argument made in a le ng thy newspa per a rticle.” ) (inter

nal alterations and citations omitt ed). See also S.D. F la. R. 7.7 (“Any party repr esente d by

an attorne y

shall not: (a) a ddress or 1 8 prese nt to the Court in the form of a le tter or the like a ny application re questingrelief in any form, citingauthorities, or pre sentingarguments: and (b) sha ll not furnish the Court with copies of cor responde nce be tween or

amongcounsel, or a

ny party repr esente d by

an attorne y .”); N.D
. Fla. R. 7.1 (F ) (same); M.D. F la. R. 2.03(d) (“ Any party for whom a

g ener al appe ara

nce of counsel ha s been ma de shall not there afte r take any step or be he ard in the c ase in prope r per son, absent prior

leave of Court.”). 23th e p os t-c on vi ct io n c on te xt . An in m at e’s in ab il ity to supe rv is e an d c on tro l the act io ns of h is lawyer m ak es th is rel at io ns hi p fa r m or e ak into th e p arad ig m of a n in de pe nd en t co nt ract orth ana tr ad it io na l ag en cy rel at io ns hi p. The n eg li ge ntact s

1 9 of anin de pe nd en t co ntract or , un li ke th os e o f anag en t, ar e n otim pu te d t o t he
em pl oyer forth e v ery reas on th atth e em pl oyer lac ks th e p owe r to m ean in gf ul ly
supe rv is e th e co ntract or . The real it y

of t he qu al it y

of p os t-c on vi ct io n d eath p en al ty repre se nt at io n av ai labl e to in di ge ntin m at es on de ath ro w do es no t m eetth e Supr em e Co urt’s
reco gn it io n t ha t Co ng res s i nt en de d t he se in m at es to have acce ss to “ qu al it y leg al rep res en ta ti on ” whe n i t m an da te d t he st atut ory rig htto co un se l. Mc Farl an d 5 12 U.S. at 8 56 , 85 9 (“ [F]ede ral habe as co rp us ha s a p art ic ul arl y im po rta ntrol e to pl ay in pro m ot in g fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s i n t he im po si ti on of t he de ath p en al ty.”); s ee al so 18 U.S.C. § 3 59 9( a)(2 ), (d ) (2 00 6) (rec od ifi cat io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 8( q) (4 )- (1 0) (19 88 )). Co ng res s p ro vi de d fo r a s ta tu to ry rig htto qu al ifi edco un se l i n fed eral habe as pro ceed in gs in li gh t o f th e “ se rio us ne ss of the po ss ib le pe na lt y . . . an d t he un ique an d c om

pl ex na tu re o f th e li ti ga ti on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 59 9( d) . Ind eed , th e Supr em e Co urt, re co gn iz in g the co m pl ex it y of f ed eral habe as pro ceed in gs , he ldth atth e st atut ory

rig htto co un se l m

us t b eg in ev enpri orto th e fi li ng of a See W. Page Kee ton et al., Prosser a nd Kee ton on Torts § 71 (5th ed. 1984). 1 9 24fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . McFar la nd , 51 2 U.S. at85 5.

The cir cu m st an ces su rro un di ng Hut ch in so n’s l awy ers ’ ne gl ig en t fi li ng of hi s s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n i n t hi s ca se il lu st rat e th e d iff ic ul ti es face d b y

a de ath ro w in m at e who att em pt s t o wo rkdi li ge nt ly w it h h is lawyers. Whil e o n de ath ro w, Hut ch in so n m ai nt ai ne d c omm un ic at io n—to th e b es t o f hi s ab il it y —wi th hi s l awy ers an d re pe at ed ly ask edth em to ti m el y fil e h is st at e p os tco nv ic ti on m ot io n s o a s t o t ol l the fil in g d ead li ne forhi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on . 2 0 Eve n the m ajor it y

reco gn iz es th atHut ch in so n was reas on ab ly dil ig en t up t o t he ti m e th athi s l awy ers fil edhi s m ot io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef. Wha t o th er st ep s co ul d Hu tc hi ns on reas on ab ly hav e ta ke n? Sho ul d h e n otha ve tru st edhi s la wy ers when th ey

ass ur edhi m

th ey were awar e o f an d wo ul d c om pl y with a ll fil in g d ead li ne s? There is cert ai nl y no ex pe ct at io n t ha t a c iv il cli en t wi ll sh ad ow hi s l awy er’s ev ery m ov e to en su re tha t al l d ead li ne s ar e m etan d a ll fil in gs are i n or de r. On the co nt rary, a repre se nt edcli en t h as ev ery rig htto ass um e th athi s la wy er wi ll co m

pe te nt ly dis ch arg e h is du ti es . Non ethe le ss , th e m ajor it y co nc lu de s t ha t Hu tc hi ns on was n otreas on ab ly The fa ct that Hutchinson signed the Rule 3.851 motion on October 19, 2005 does not 2 0 establish beyond dispute that he knewthat his attorney s had missed the dea dline for f iling his state petition. Although Hutchinson kept askinghis lawyers to file his state pe tition, thereis nothing to indicate that he knew the pre cise de adline. It is equally consistent with the fac ts to believe that he simply

wanted his state pe tition fil ed and later a ccepted his attorney s’ advice that the dea dline was Oc tober 20, 2005. 25di li ge ntbe cau se he sh ou ldha ve fil eda pr o s e fed eral habe as pe ti ti on an d a sk edto

ha ve ithe ldin ab ey an ce u nt il hi s ef fo rts to sec ur e st at e co ll at eral rel ie f were
co m pl et ed . This co ur se of a ct io n s ur el y can no t b e requi redof acli en t wh enhe ha s le ga l re pr es en ta ti on . A reas on ab le pri so ne r wou ldha ve no cau se to fil e 2 1 hi s o wn p le ad in gs forth e si m pl e rea so n t ha t i t i s as su m edth atitis hi s l awy er’s job to do so . Esp eci al ly here, wh ere Hu tc hi ns on ’s lawyers rep eat ed ly ass ur edhi m th at th ey wou ldfil e o n t im e, Hut ch in so n h adno reas on to pu rs ue analt ern at iv e av enue of rel ie f. Reas on ab ly rely in g o n h is lawyers’ ass ur an ces th atth ey were d oi ng what
was ne ces sa ry

to pro te cthi s fe de ral habe as rig ht s, Hu tc hi ns on di d n otfil e a p ro se fed eral habe as pe ti ti on un ti l i t was to o l at e. Indeed, the re is no guara ntee that suc h a plac eholder petition would be acc epted by the 2 1 fede ral district cour

t. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (“[S] tay and abe yance should be ava ilable only

in limi ted circ umstances . . . a nd is only appropriate whe n the district court de termines ther e wa s g ood cause for the pe titioner’s failure to present his cla ims first to the state cour ts.”). In a conc urringopinion with the judgment in Rhines, J ustice Stevens, with whom J ustices Ginsburgand B reyer joined, obse rved that conditioning the stay-and- abeyance proce dure on “g ood cause ” instead of simply on a lac k of “intentionally dilatory litigation tactics”left open the door for

“[t] he trickine ss of some exhaustion requireme nts to infect issues of g ood cause
. . . .” I d. at 279. Moreove r, Rhines conc erne d an issue distinct from the c ase at hand in which some habea s corpus c laims had bee n exhausted in state court a nd others had not. The stay -andabeyance proce dure w as endor sed in limit ed cir cumstance s in order to pre serve the petitioner’s interest in obtainingrevie w of his claims. I d. at 278. In contra st, the g ood cause inquiry in this case would have involved issues of attorney neg lige nce. I

n addition, Hutchinson’s ability to attempt to preva il upon the stay -and- abeyanceproce dure turne d on both his acce ss to information about the proc edure , and a pr esumption that he did not believe his attorne y s’ advice that the filing de adline for

his application for state post-conviction re lief in order to preser ve his fede ral habea s corpus right was on Oc tober 20, 2005. Unde r these c ircumstance s, it is far from c erta in that Hutchinson would have been grante d stay -and- abeyanceby a district cour

t applying the g ood cause standard a

nd unlikely

that a pane l of this Court would have re verse d a district cour t denial there of on an a

buse of discr etion revie w. 26II. Exc ep ti on s t o C li en t Re sp on si bi li ty for Lawy er’s Co nduc t

Death ro w in m at es sh ou ldno t b e p recl ud edfro m ha vi ng th ei r fed eral cla im s rev ie wedbe cau se of t he ir l awy er’s n eg li ge nc e. Exce pt io ns to th e p rin ci pl e th atall cl ie nt s ar e res po ns ib le for th e n eg li ge nc e o f th ei r la wy ers ex is t el se whe re i n t he la w. For e xa m

pl e, whe n m or e im

po rtantco un te rv ai li ng va lu es are atst ak e, va rio us rul es of c iv il pro cedur e p ro vi de co urts with d is cret io n t o e xc us e pr oc edur al de fau lt s i n c as es of l awy er n eg li ge nc e. See, e.g ., Dov e v . CODESCO, 56 9 F .2d80 7, 8 10 (4t h C ir. 1 97 8) (“ [T]he sa nc ti on s fo r at to rn ey ne gl ectsh ou ldbe bo rn e if at a ll po ss ib le by the att orne y hi m se lf r athe r th anby his cli en t.”) ; J ack so n v. Wash in gt on Mo nthl y

Co ., 56 9 F .2d11 9, 1 23 , n.2 3 (D.C . Cir . 19 77 ) (“ [A] sou nd di sc ret io n h ard ly com

pr eh en ds a po in tl es s ex act io n o f ret rib ut io n. Di sm is sa ls for
m is co nduc t at tri bu tabl e to lawyers, an d i n n o [wa y ] to th ei r cl ie nt s, i nv ari ab ly pe na li ze the in no cen t an d m ay letth e g ui lt y

off sco t-f ree.” ). Ru le 60 (b )(1 ), fo r ex am

pl e, pr ov id es rel ie f fro m

a fi na l ju dg m en t fo r ex cu sabl e n eg le ct , whi ch can“ en co m pa ss si tu at io ns inwhi ch th e fai lu re t o c om pl y with afil in g d ead li ne is att rib ut ab le to ne gl ig en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Dave np ort, 66 8 F .3d13 16 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). Sim il arl y , Rul e 5 5( c) h as be enap pl ie d t o gi ve a cl ie ntrel ie f fro m

th e en try of a d efau ltth atwas c au se d b y th e n eg li ge nc e o f
anatt orne y

un de r th e “ go odcau se st an da rd .” Sh ep ardCla im s Se rv ., Inc . v. 27W il li am

Darrah & Ass oc s., 7 96 F.2d19 0, 1 95 (6t h C ir. 1 98 6) . Excep ti on s s uc h a s th os e av ai labl e u nd er Ru le s 5 5( c) an d 6 0( b) ex is t b ecau se , un li ke a pu re pr in ci pa l-a ge ntrel at io ns hi p, m os t cl ie nt s ar e n otab le to ex erci se pe rfec t co nt ro l
ov er the ir l awy ers . Lik ewis e, un de r Ru le 11 , th e ag en cy pri nc ip le is pu t as id e in ord er fo r co urts to di rectsan ct io ns to wardlawyers— an d n otth ei r cl ie nt s—whe n c li en ts are no t i m pl ic at edin or a ware o f th e o ffen di ng att orne y erro r, ba d fa it h, o r ne gl ig en ce th atfal l wi th ina la wy er’s p ro fes si on al zo ne of c on tro l. Un de r Ru le 11 ,

“ [s ]anct io nabl e co nduc t b y a pa rty’ s co un se l d oe s n otne ces sa ril y pa rla y in to sa nc ti on ab le co nduc t b y

a pa rty.” By

rn e v . Nezh at , 26 1 F .3d10 75 , 11 23 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Andun de r Ru le 37 , a di stric t co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n t o app orti on sa nc ti on s fo r di sc ov ery ab us es be twee n l awy ers an d t he ir c li en ts . Devan y v. Co nt ’l Am . Ins . Co., 9 89 F.2d11 54 , 11 62 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Forex am pl e, Ru le 37 is no t co ns tru edto au th or iz e th e sa nc ti on of d is m is sa l “ be cau se of p et it io ne r’s
no nc om pl ia nc e wit h apre tri al pro du ct io n o rd er wh enitha s b een est ab li sh edth at fai lu re t o c om

pl y ha s b een du e to in ab il it y , andno t t o wi ll fu ln es s, b adfai th , or a ny fau ltof p et it io ne r.” So ci et e In te rn at io na le po ur Part ic ip at io ns Indus tri el le s et Co m m erci al es , S.A. v. Ro ge rs , 35 7 U.S. 1 97 , 21 2 (1 95 8) . This Co urt h as he ldth at 28“ [a] part y ’s si m pl e n eg li ge nc e o r ot he r act io n g ro un de d i n am is un de rs ta nd in g o f a
co urt o rd er d oe s n otwarran t d is m is sa l.” Equa l Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Co m m ’n, 69 3 F .2d13 53 , 13 57 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). See al so Mal au te a v . Suz uk i Mo to r Co ., Ltd., 9 87 F.2d15 36 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ [v ]iol at io n o f a d is co ve ry

ord er caus edby sim

pl e n eg li ge nc e, m is un de rs ta nd in g, o r in ab il it y to co m pl y wil l n otjus ti fy

a Ru le 37 de fau ltjud gm en t o r di sm is sa l.”)
. Mak in g d eat h ro w in m at es who ll y res po ns ib le fora la wy er’s n eg li ge nc e do es no t en su re tha t l awy ers wil l t im el y ass ertth ei r cl ie nt s’ cla im s. Deat h ro w cl ie nt s h av e li tt le ab il it y

to ho ldth ei r la wy ers acco un tabl e fo r th ei r ne gl ig en ce. Anda po li cy

of p un is hi ng de ath ro w in m at es forsu ch m is ta ke s d oe s n otim pr ov e th e ti m el in es s o f la wy ers ’ act io ns . Whi le civ il li ti ga nt s ca n s eekrel ie f fo r a la wy er’s m is ta ke th ro ug h am al pr act ic e la wsu it , th ere i s n o re m edy fora de ath ro w in m at e. Whe n alawyer’ s n eg li ge nc e fo recl os es co ns id erat io n o f th e en ti rety of t he de ath ro w in m at e’s fed eral cla im s, the res ul t i s t he im po si ti on of t he de ath p en al ty witho utfed eral rev ie w. The se cas es an d e xa m

pl es il lu st rat e th atco un te rv ai li ng va lu es for ge ex cep ti on s i n t he law. Th e co un te rv ai li ng va lu e h ere i s the pro te ct io n o f th e ri gh t to fed eral rev ie w of ade ath ro w in m at e’s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on , whi ch is pr em is ed , inpa rt, o n “ equi tabl e p rin ci pl es [whi ch ] ha ve tra di ti on al ly gov ern edth e 29subs ta nt iv e la w of h ab eas co rp us .” Hol land , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 60 (qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) (ho ld in g t ha t the on e-year st atut ory fil in g d ead li ne forfed eral habe as pe ti ti on s i s s ub

ject t o e qu it ab le to ll in g) . Thu s, i n Ho ll an d, wh ic h p res en te d t he
sa m e que st io n a s i s p res en te d h ere, the Supr em e Co urt fr am edth e in qu iry as o ne of ho w equ it y

ap pl ie s wh il e st il l ac kn owl ed gi ng th e fed eral st atut ory fil in g de ad li ne . See i d. at25 63 . The Co urt n ot edth atth e co un te rv ai li ng va lu e o f fed eral is m

weig hs m or e h eav il y

inth e cas e o f fai li ng to co m pl y with ast at e’s pr oc edur al rul es th anitdo es forequi tabl e to ll in g o f th e fed eral habe as fil in g de ad li ne whi ch is co nc ern edon ly “with fe de ral ti m in g ru le s.” Id . W ith t he se co ns id erat io ns in min d, the Co urt re jecte d ape r se ap pr oa chto th e p rev io us ly
un qu al ifi edrul e th at“ a p et it io ne r m us t b ear t he ris k o f at to rn ey erro r” i n t he
co nt ex t o f Hol la nd ’s cas e. Id
. 2 2 Mo re re cen tl y

in Map le s, 1 32 S. Ct. at92 4, the Co urt h el d t ha t a l awy er’s
co nduc t tha t co ns ti tu te s ab an do nm en t o f hi s d eat h ro w in m at e cl ie ntwil l al so pr ov id e th e n eces sa ry

ba si s fo r equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e fed eral habe as fil in g de ad li ne . The Co urt re ach edth is co nc lu si on , inpa rt, b ecau se ev enag en cy The c rucia l importance of the broa der a

vailability

of equitable tolling is highlighted by 2 2 the subsequent de velopments in Holland’s ca se. Upon e ventual re mand to the district court, which grante d Holland equitable tollingand then c onsidered the merits of the c onstitut ional claims raise d in Holland’s fe dera l habea s petition, the court grante d him habeas r elief on his Fa retta v. Califor

nia, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) c laim. Holland v. Tucke r, No. 06-c iv-20182 (S.D. Fla
. Marc h 30, 2012) (or der grantingin part petition for ha beas c orpus). 30pr in ci pl es ackno wled ge anex cep ti on to th e as su m pt io n t ha t a c li en t m

us t b ear t he ris k o f th e act s o r omiss io ns of h is lawyer inth e cas e o f ab an do nm en t. Id
. Howev er, t o g ran t equi tabl e to ll in g o nl y incas es of c om

pl et e la wy er ab an do nm en t o r so m ethi ng ak in to gro ss ne gl ig en ce d oe s n otgo far en ou gh . See Hol land , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 67 (Ali to , J., co nc urrin g i n t he jud gm en t) ( “ All owi ng equi tabl e to ll in g i n c as es in vo lv in g g ro ss rathe r th anord in ary at to rn ey ne gl ig en ce wou ldno t o nl y

fai l t o m ak e se ns e in li gh t o f ou r pr io r cas es ; i t wo ul d a ls o b e im pr act ic al in th e ex tre m e. . . . [I] t h as be enap tl y sai d tha t g ro ss ne gl ig en ce i s or di na ry ne gl ig en ce wi th a vi tupe rat iv e ep it he t ad de d.” ). Whe re i s t he equi ty in de nyin g t he same reli ef t o o ne in m at e jus t b ecau se th e act s o r omiss io ns of h is la wy er were sl ig ht ly less eg reg io us th anan ot he r in m at e’s la wy er? Ins te ad , th e real ity is th atde ath ro w in m at es ’ acce ss to co m pe te nt , po st -co nv ic ti onleg al rep res en ta ti on is at b es t i nc on si st en t an d a t wo rs t n on -ex is te ntan d t he ir abi li ty to co m m un ic at e fre el y

an d a ct iv el y

pa rti ci pa te inth ei r li ti ga ti on is ser io us ly
co m pr om is ed . Und er thi s re al ity , I qu es ti onwhet he r st ric t ad he ren ce t o t he pr in ci pl e th ata de ath ro w in m at e m us t b ear t he co ns eque nc es of h is lawyer’ s ne gl ig en ce i s fa ir o r jus t.

31