FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT March 24, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 10210

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 1 3 9 9 - CV- HES E RN E S T C . D O W N S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A L T E R A . M C N E I L , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L 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 f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 24, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

E rne s tC ha r l e s D ow ns i s apr i s one ron F l or i da ’ s de a th r ow . A f t e re xha us t i ng hi s oppor tuni t i e s f

ors t a t e c our tr e vi e w , he turne d t o the f e de r a l c our t s on D e c e m be r12, 2001, f

i l i ng ape t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4. T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the pet i t i on as un t i m el y bec ause i tw as f i l e d e i g h td a y s b e y o n d th e o n e - y e a rl i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d p r o v i d e d b y 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . R e g a r d le s s w h e th e rth e p e titio n w a s tim e ly , D o w n s c o n te n d s h e is e n title d to e q u itab le to llin g b e c au s e o f e g r e g io u s c o n d u c t b y h is c o u n s e l th r o u g h o u t h is p o s tc o n v ic tio n p r o c e e d in g s . I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , D o w n s a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t h e is e n title d to ah e a r in g o n th e m e r its o f h is p e titio n b e c au s e h e h a s m a d e ac o lo r ab le s how i ng tha the i s a c tua l l y i nnoc e ntof ac api t a l of

f e ns e . W e c onc l ude the f a c t s he has a l l eged, i f true, w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o equ i t abl e t ol l i ng for aperi od equal l i ng , at am in im u m , th e e ig h t d a y s b y w h ic h h e m is s e d th e s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n s p e r io d . T here fore , w e vac at e the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of the pet i t i on and rem and for an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on the f a c t s unde r l y i ng D ow ns ’ r e que s tf ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng.A full discussion of the facts of Downs’ underly ing c onviction can befound in Downs 1 v . S tate , 572 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1990)(B arkett, J .). 3 I . FA CTS A N D PRO CED U RA L H I STO RY A . C o n v ic tio n a n d E a r ly A p p e a ls 1 F ol l ow i ng aj urytr i a l , D ow ns w a s c onvi c t e d of f i r s tde gr e e m ur de ra nd c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tm ur de rf orthe c ontr a c tki l l i ng of F or e s tJ e rry H a rr i s i n 1971. H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o de a th. In 19 87 , the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtre vers ed D ow ns’ se nt ence af t er de t e rm i ni ng he ha d be e n pr e ve nt e d f r om pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e a ts e nt e nc i ng tha the had n otshotthe vi ct i m . D uri ng re se nt enci ng proceedi ng s, D ow ns and o ther w i tness es t es t i fi ed another c on spi ra t or had fi re d the fa t al shot s. T he j ury vot ed e i ghtt o f ourt o r e c om m e nd ac api t a l s e nt e nc e , a nd the tr i a l j udge r e i m pos e d the d eath p en al ty. In S ep t em b er 1 9 9 0 , th e F l o ri d a S u p rem e C o u rtaffi rm ed D o w n s’ s e n te n c e . B . C C R C -N F l ori da’ s C api t al C ol l at er al R egi on al C ou nsel (C C R C ) i s “ an ent i ty c re at ed by the F l or i daL e gi s l a tur e t o pr ovi de pos t - c onvi c t i on r e pr e s e nt a t i on t o i ndi ge nt death row i nm at es . ” See Sa n ch ez-V ela sco v. Sec’y o

f D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 287 F . 3d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g Fl a . St a t . § § 2 7 . 7 0 1 - 7 0 8 ) . I n 1 9 9 2 , CCRC a tto rn e y s in T a lla h a s s e e , F lo r id ab e g a n r e p r e s e n tin g D o w n s .Downs’ attorneys operated as a unit and maintained shared re sponsibili ty for the c ase; 2 there fo re , w etre at th eof

fi c ea s w ewould

a law f ir m, re ferringto t

heof fi c e ’satto rn eys a s a p ra ct i cegro u

p , rath er th anb y n am e. By

do i n g s o , wedo n o tm eant o s ugges tth atth e wro n gs al l e g e dly c o mm i tt e d

i nD o wn s ’ c a s earerep re s ent ati v eo f th ew o r k o f C C RC -No r

i t s att o r n eys in o ther c a se s. Th edis tric t c ourt

did no t ho ld a

n evidenti ary

he aringto de terminethetr uth of Do wn s’ 3 alleg ations before dismissing his habea s petition; there fore , no fac ts have be en found. We set fo rt h th efac ts a s alle g e d b y

Do wn s in

thelight m os t f

avo ra bleto him, drawingall re a so na ble inferences in his favor. 4 C C R C o p e r a te s f

r o m s e v e r a l in d e p e n d e n t r e g io n a l o f f ic e s , se e F la . S ta t. § 27. 702( 1) ; D ow ns ’ a tt orne y s w orke d i n the N or the rn O f f i c e ( C C R C - N ) . D ur i ng th e years C C R C -N rep resen t ed D o w n s, atl eastsev en att o rn eys w o rk ed o n D o w n s’ ca se . 2 C . L a t e rP os t c onvi c t i on P r oc e e di ngs 3 I n 1 9 9 2 , D o w n s ’ c o u n s e l f i l e d as t a t e p o s t c o n v i c t i o n mo t i o n u n d e rFl a . R. C ri m . P . 3 . 8 5 0 , ch al l en g i n g D o w n s’ cap i t al sen t en ce o n n u m ero u s g ro u n d s, in c lu d in g th e w ith h o ld in g o f e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e a n d th e in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

b o th hi s tr i a l a nd r e s e nt e nc i ng c ouns e l . T he pos t c onvi c t i on m ot i on r e m a i ne d pe ndi ng f orf i ve y e a r s . W he n the m ot i on w a s de ni e d i n 1997, D ow ns appe a l e d. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtaf fi rm ed the deni al of hi s post conv i ct i on m ot i on on M ay 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 , D o w n s v . S ta te , 740 S o. 2d 506 ( F l a . 1999) , a nd i s s ue d i t s m a nda t e on O c to b e r1 8 , 1 9 9 9 . W hi l e D ow ns ’ pos t c onvi c t i on m ot i on w a s pe ndi ng, the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (A E D P A ) t oo k eff ec t , es t abl i shi ng a one-y ea r5

l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f

ors t a t e pr i s one r s t o s e e k f e de r a l habe a s c orpus r e vi e w . 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . A w a r e of the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i m pos e d by A E D P A a nd ea ger t o saf

eguard hi s r i gh tt o federa l re vi ew , D ow ns cont ac t ed C C R C -N im m e d ia te ly a f

te rth e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d th e ap p e a l o f h is p o s tc o n v ic tio n m o tio n . I n ale tte rd a te d M a y 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 , D o w n s a s k e d h is c o u n s e l to ( 1 ) p e titio n f

o rr e h e a r in g o n th e d e n ia l o f h is R u le 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n ; ( 2 ) p r e p a r e as ta te habe a s pe t i t i on ( the ne xts t e p i n F l or i da ’ s pos t c onvi c t i on r e vi e w pr oc e s s ) ; a nd (3) f i l e apet i t i on i n federa l court“ as ki ng that[hi s] ca se be hel d i n abeya nce pe ndi ng di s pos i t i on of

the s t a t e w r i t . ” T he f

ol l ow i ng w e e k, D ow ns s e ntas e c ond l e tt e rt o c ouns e l , pr ovi di ng ade t a i l e d e xpl a na t i on of the hi s t ory of

hi s c a s e a nd r e que s t i ng avi s i tf

r om c ouns e l t o di s c us s the c ont e nt s of hi s pos t c onvi c t i on m o tio n s . F o u rm o n th s p a s s e d w ith n o r e s p o n s e f r o m c o u n s e l. F i n al l y, o n S ep t em b er 2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , a C C R C -N att o rn ey resp o n d ed t o D o w n s’ le tte r . T h e a tto rn e y ap o lo g iz e d f o rh is d e la y e dr e s p o n s e , e x p la in in g , “I f in d m y s e lf i nt errupt ed by an em er gency e veryt i m e I tryt o w ork o n you r a ff i davi t s or c on si der ourne xtm ove a nd y ouri de a s . . . . [ O ] nc e a ga i n, I w r i t e t o i nf orm y ou the r e w i l l be del aybefore I c an re turn m y a tt ent i on t o you r c as e. ”6

A p p r o x i ma t e l y o n e mo n th l a t e r , o n O c t o b e r1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , th e Fl o r i d aSu p r e me C o u rti ssu ed i t s m an d at e d en yi n g D o w n s’ p o st co n v i ct i o n m o t i o n , an d D o w n s’ f e d e r a l h ab e a s lim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g a n to ru n . S e ve n m onths l a t e r , on M a y 26, 2000, D ow ns ’ a tt orne y s s e ntal e tt e ra s ki ng D ow ns t o revi ew a dra ftof a propo se d st at e habeas pet i t i on , and som et i m e l at er thatsum m er , a C C R C -N att orney t ol d D ow ns the st at e habeas pet i t i on had b ee n f ile d

— a n a c t th a t w o u ld h a v e to lle d th e f e d e r a l h ab e a s lim ita tio n s p e r io d w h ile s im u lta n e o u s ly p r o v id in g D o w n s w ith a d d itio n a l s ta te c o u r t r e v ie w . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( p r o v id in g th a t tim e w h e n p r o p e r ly f ile d ap p lic a tio n f

o rp o s tconv i ct i on re l i ef

i s pendi ng i n st at e c ou rtshal l no tbe coun t ed t ow ar d o ne-y ea r lim ita tio n s p e r io d ) . H o w e v e r , th e la w y e r ’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n w a s alie : n o s ta te p e titio n h a d b e e n f

ile d . O n S ept em ber 3, 20 00 , si x w ee ks before hi s f eder al l i m i t at i on s per i od w as s c he dul e d t o e xpi r e , D ow ns s e ntl e tt e r s t o tw o of hi s a tt orne y s . I n the f

i r s t , he w rot e: I don ’ tkn ow i f I m i sund er st oo d you or w hat , bu tw hen w e t al ked ab o u t am o n th a g o , I w a s le f t w ith th e im p r e s s io n th a t m y S ta te w r it h a d b e e n f

ile d , a n d n o w I f

in d o u t it’s n o t. Y o u s a id ale g a l c a ll w o u ld be e a s y t o do. S o how abouts e tt i ng one up s o w e c a n t a l k. I . . . w a nt to k n o w w h a t’s g o in g o n . In the l ett ert o h i s s ec on d att orney, D ow ns w rot e:7

I w a s t ol d ba c k i n M a y tha tm y s t a t e w r i tw a s done a nd r e a dy f or f ilin g . . . . [ N ]o w I f

in d o u t th a t m y s ta te w r it h a s n ’t e v e n b e e n f ile d . I w antt o k no w w hat ’ s goi ng on ! Y ou sa i d you rs el f thatm y one ye ar to b e in f e d e r a l c o u r t is u p n e x t m o n th . S o w h y a ll th is tim e w ith n o th in g in s ta te , e s p e c ia lly w h e n I th o u g h t I w a s a lr e a d y in s ta te c o u r t [ ?] C ou nsel di d n otre spon d t o D ow ns’ dem and for expl anat i on and d i d n otfi l e e i ther as ta te o rf

e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n f

o rm o r e th a n o n e m o n th . A tl on g l as t , on O ct ob er18 , 20 00

— the 36 5th d ayof D ow ns’ fe dera l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od— c ouns e l f i l e d as t a t e habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, the r e by te m p o r a r ily to llin g w h a t little r e m a in e d o f D o w n s ’ f

e d e r a l h ab e a s d e a d lin e . S ever al w ee ks l at er , D ow ns’ l ea d cou nsel re si gn ed. A new att orney w as appo i nt ed t o ha ndl e D ow ns ’ c a s e , buthe t oo r e s i gne d one m onth a f t e rbe i ng a s s i gne d t o the c a s e . U nde rF l or i dal a w , a n a tt orne y m a y nots e rve a s l e a d c ouns e l r e pr e s e nt i ng a capi t al l i t i gantun l es s he or s he i s “ a m em ber i n g oo d st andi ng of T he F l ori da B ar , w i th n o tl ess th an 3 years’ ex p eri en ce i n th e p ract i ce o f cri m i n al l aw , an d . . . h a[s] part i ci pat ed i n atl ea stfi ve fe l on y j ury tri al s, fi ve fe l on y app ea l s, or fi ve capi t al po st conv i ct i on evi dent i ary hea ri ng s or a ny com bi nat i on of atl ea stfi ve of such p r o c e e d in g s .” F la . S ta t. § 2 7 .7 0 4 ( 1 ) . W h e n D o w n s ’ s e c o n d la w y e rr e s ig n e d in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 0 , n o o th e ra tto rn e y s a t C C R C - N o f f ic e w e r e q u a lif

ie d to h a n d le D ow ns’ ca se al tho ug h C C R C -N re m ai ned D ow ns’ coun se l of re cord. T he offi ce8

ob t ai ned a cont i nu ance i n D ow ns’ ca se w hi ch re m ai ned i n p l ac e f rom N ov em ber 20 00 un t i l June 20 01 , w hen n ew coun se l w as fi nal l y hi re d and as si gn ed t o the ca se . W hi l e the st at e habeas pet i t i on re m ai ned p endi ng , D ow ns t oo k add i t i on al s t e ps t o i ns ur e hi s l a w y e r s w oul d pr e s e rve hi s r i ghtt o f e de r a l r e vi e w . O n J une 17, 2 0 0 1 , D o w n s w r o te h is n e w ly - a s s ig n e d c o u n s e l d ir e c tin g th e m to w a s te n o tim e in f i l i ng e i the ras t a t e w r i tof c or a m nobi s oraf

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on: L e t’s n o t ta k e a n y c h a n c e s . . . [ A ]f te rth e p r e s e n t w r it is a r g u e d , I w a nty ou t o e i the rf

i l e w ha tw a s di s c us s e d i n s t a t e c our t[ the w r i tof cora m no bi s] or go ahea d and i ni t i at e m y f eder al appeal and then m o v e to h a v e it s ta y e d w h ile w e r e tu rn to s ta te c o u r t. C ouns e l r e s ponde d w i th apr om i s e t o “ be up the f i r s tf ul l w e e k i n S e pt e m be rw i th a d r a f t.” A l tho ug h D ow ns di d n othave acc es s t o any of hi s l egal papers (s i nce they w er e i n h i s a tt orneys ’ po ss es si on ), D ow ns prepar ed for hi s m ee t i ng w i th cou nsel by draf t i ng a pro se habeas pet i t i on l i st i ng the i ss ues he w i shed t o rai se i n federa l court , t o com pare t o the drafthi s l aw ye rs had p rom i se d t o b ri ng hi m . H ow ever , w he n c ouns e l a rr i ve d t o m e e tw i th D ow ns on S e pt e m be r7, 2001, the y di d not br i ng adr a f

tof a ny s t a t e w r i torf

e de r a l pe t i t i on. D ow ns ga ve the m ac opy of the p e titio n h e h a d d r a f

te d h im s e lf

. L a t e rtha tda y , af

rus tr a t e d D ow ns w r ot e t o c ouns e l w i th the f ol l ow i ng di re ct i ve:9

I f y ou’ r e notgoi ng t o pr ot e c tm y r i ghtt o af e de r a l appe a l by f

i l i ng w hatyou sai d you w ou l d i n st at e c ou rt(a nd i t ’ s pre tty c l ea r that you’ re no tgo i ng t o), then I w antyou t o g o ahead and fi l e m y f eder al appeal . Y ou sa i d you rs el f t od ay , thatbecause [ a f orm erC C R C -N a tto rn e y ] w a ite d o n e y e a rto f ile m y s ta te w r it, th a t I h a v e to b e in f e de r a l c our tno l a t e rtha n the da y the pe ndi ng w r i ti s de ni e d. S o no m o r e w a itin g . G o a h e a d a n d f ile m y f e d e r a l ap p e a l. C o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d b y le tte ro n S e p te m b e r2 0 , 2 0 0 1 , “n o tin g [ D o w n s ’] te m p e r a te ye tfi rm re bu ke. ” T he re spon se di d n oti nd i ca t e, ho w ever , w hether c ou nsel had ta k e n a c tio n a s d ir e c te d . W i s hi ng t o c onf

i rm c ouns e l ha d f

i l e d the pe t i t i on a s he ha d di r e c t e d, the f ol l ow i ng w e e k D ow ns s poke w i th a n i nve s t i ga t orf r om C C R C - N w ho w a s vi s i t i ng the pr i s on w he r e D ow ns w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d. T he i nve s t i ga t orw a s unabl e t o pr ovi de in f o rm a tio n r e g a r d in g th e s ta tu s o f D o w n s ’ h ab e a s p e titio n . D ow ns a l l e ge s tha thi s l e a d a tt orne y w a s abus i ng a l c ohol a nd l i vi ng outof hi s c ardu ri ng the t i m e he r epre se nt ed D ow ns. C on ce rned coun se l ’ s a l coho l i sm w as de l a y i ng the f

i l i ng of hi s habe a s pe t i t i on, D ow ns w r ot e t o a nothe ra tt orne y w orki ng o n h is c a s e : I s aw . . . an i nv es t i gat or fr om your offi ce l as tT uesday. . . . I tri ed ta lk in g to [ h im ] ab o u t th e s ta tu s o f m y f e d e r a l ap p e a l, b u t h e s a id [C C R C -N att orney H arry ] B rody w ou l d h ave t o res po nd t o l egal m att er s. E veryt i m e I ’ ve se en B rody i t ’ s ob[v] i ou s thathe has been dri nk i ng . H i s c on di t i on w as so bad thi s l as tvi si tthathe dam n n ea r f e l l o u to f h i s c h a i r . . . . I n a l l c a n d o r , h i s c o n d i t i o n c o n c e rn s me g r e a tly .10

D o e s B r o d y u n d e r s ta n d th e im p o rta n c e o f p r o te c tin g m y r ig h t to f e de r a l r e vi e w ? I ke e p t e l l i ng hi m t o i ni t i a t e f e de r a l a c t i on now i n s t e a d o f

w a i t i n g t o s e e i f

th e w r i ti s d e n i e d b y th e Fl o r i d aSu p r e me C ou rt . H e kee ps sa yi ng thati f the st at e w ri ti s deni ed, there w i l l be a pet i t i on for r ehea ri ng fol l ow ed by a m andat e. B utw hati f the court deni es the w ri tand say s no rehea ri ng w i l l be ent ert ai ned. T hen w hat ? ! H e nee ds t o u nd er st and thatm y f eder al appeal needs t o b e i ni t i at ed n o w , in s te a d o f

w a itin g . O n S e p te m b e r2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d D o w n s ’ s ta te habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, D o w n s v. Mo o re , 801 S o. 2d 906 ( F l a . 2001) , a nd on O c t obe r11, 2001, D ow ns ’ c ouns e l f i l e d am ot i on f

orr e he a r i ng. O n N ove m be r1, 2001, w i thoute xpl a na t i on, c ouns e l r e turne d D ow ns ’ dr a f thabe a s pe t i t i on, s t a t i ng si m pl y, “ I a m re turni ng your pet i t i on . ” C ou nsel di d n oti nd i ca t e w hether aform al habe a s pe t i t i on ha d be e n f i l e d, butD ow ns c oul d ha ve r e a s onabl y i nf e rr e d f r om the retu rn o f h i s pro se pe t i t i on tha tc ouns e l e i the rha d f i l e d the pe t i t i on a s di r e c t e d, or w a s pr e pa r e d t o do s o on the da y the F l or i daS upr e m e C our tde ni e d the pe ndi ng p e titio n f o rr e h e a r in g . O ne m on th l at er , on D ec em ber 3, 20 01 , the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed the m ot i on for r ehea ri ng . D ow ns’ att orneys di d n otfi l e hi s § 22 54 fe dera l habeas corpus pet i t i on un t i l ni ne days l at er , on D ec em ber 12, 20 01 . S ho rt l y there af t er , D ow ns fi re d h i s c ou nsel , and p roce ededpro se in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.11

D . F e de r a l H abe a s P e t i t i on I n hi s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on, D ow ns r a i s e d 13 gr ounds f orr e l i e f , i nc l udi ng c la im s th a t h is tr ia l a n d ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w e r e in e f f e c tiv e a n d th a t th e S ta te w i thh el d excul pat ory e vi dence fr om hi m i n v i ol at i on of B r ady v . M ar y land , 373 U . S . 83, 83 S . C t . 1194 ( 1963) . A tD ow ns ’ r e que s t , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a y e d the p e titio n f o rs e v e r a l y e a r s to a llo w D o w n s to e x h au s t a n in e f f e c tiv e n e s s c la im in s ta te c o u r t. In 20 04 , the ca se w as re op ened, and o n O ct ob er24 , 20 04 , the di stri ctcourt di s m i s s e d the pe t i t i on a s unt i m e l y . T he c our tf ound D ow ns ’ f

e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons p e r io d h a d e x p ir e d O c to b e r1 7 , 1 9 9 9 , o n e d a y b e f o r e h is a tto rn e y s f

ile d th e s ta te habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our the l d i n the a l t e rna t i ve tha te ve n i f the s t a t e habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on ha d be e n t i m e l y f i l e d, D ow ns ’ f

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on w a s ne ve r the l e s s unt i m e l y be c aus e i tw a s f i l e d ni ne da y s a f

t e rthe s t a t e pe t i t i on w a s de ni e d on r e he a r i ng. D ow ns ar gu ed he w as ent i t l ed t o equ i t abl e t ol l i ng because, al tho ug h h e w as di l i ge nti n pur s ui ng hi s c a s e , hi s a tt orne y s ’ r e pe a t e d unr e s pons i ve ne s s a nd m i sr epre se nt at i on s w er e bey on d h i s c on trol . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otho l d an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g an d m ad e n o fi n d i n g s o f factw i th resp ectt o D o w n s’ al l egat i on s. Inst ea d, ci t i ng C i rc ui tprec edentho l di ng thatm er e a tt orney negl i gence i s notsuff

i ci entt o w arra ntequi t abl e t ol l i ng , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that12

D o w n s w a s “b o u n d b y h is a tto rn e y ’s e rr o re v e n th o u g h h e d id n o t a c q u ie s c e in coun se l ’ s c on du ct . ” In th e o p i n i o n d i sm i ssi n g D o w n s’ p et i t i o n , th e d i stri ctco u rtn o t ed D o w n s’ al l egat i on thathi s a tt orney w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o add uce e vi dence that D o w n s h ad n o tsh o tH arri s. A ck n o w l ed g i n g th e al l eg at i o n s co u l d b e read as a c la im D o w n s w a s in n o c e n t o f a n y c ap ita l o f

f e n s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te ly co n cl u d ed D o w n s d i d n o ti n t en d t o rai se an actu al i n n o cen ce cl ai m . N o n eth el ess, th e c o u r t h e ld D o w n s h a d f a ile d to p r e s e n t a n y n e w e v id e n c e o ra lle g e a n y f a c ts w h ic h w o u ld s u p p o r t s u c h ac la im . O n appe a l , thi s C our tgr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty , l i m i t e d t o the fo l l o w i n g i ssu es: ( 1) W he the ra tt orne y m i s c onduc tgoi ng be y ond m e r e ne gl i ge nc e c a n be a n “ e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e ” w a rr a nt i ng e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the lim ita tio n s p e r io d in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . See U ni ted Stat es v. M a r tin , 408 F . 3d 1089, 1093 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ s e r i ous a tt orne y m i s c onduc t , a s oppos e d t o m e r e ne gl i ge nc e , m a y w a rr a nt equi t abl e t ol l i ng ”) ; B alda yaqu e v . U

ni ted States , 338 F . 3d 145, 152 (2d C i r. 20 03 ); S

p i t syn v. Mo o re , 34 5 F . 3d 79 6, 80 1-02 (9th C i r. 20 03 ); U ni te d State s v . W

y nn , 29 2 F . 3d 22 6, 23 0 (5th C i r. 20 02 ); N ar a v . Fr ank , 2 6 4 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 2 0 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , abr ogate d i n par t by C a r e y v . Sa ffo ld , 53 6 U . S . 21 4, 12 2 S . C t . 21 34 (200 2). (2) A ss um i ng att orney m i sc on du ctgo i ng beyond m er e negl i gence c a n b e a n “e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e ” w a rr a n tin g e q u itab le t ol l i ng, w he the rP e t i t i one rw oul d be e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng un der the fa ct s of thi s c as e.13

(3 ) W h eth er th e p et i t i o n sh o u l d b e rev i ew ed o n th e m eri t s b ecau se o f P e titio n e r ’s c la im o f

a lle g e d a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . See H ou se v. B e ll , __U .S . __ , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 0 6 4 , 2 0 7 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ; Sc h lu p v . D e lo , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 9 8 , 3 2 4 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 8 5 1 , 8 6 5 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; Si bl eyv. C ul l i ve r , 37 7 F . 3d 11 96 , 12 05 (11th C i r. 20 04 ).

I I . DI S C US S I ON O r di na r i l y , w he n as t a t e pr i s one r ’ s c onvi c t i on be c om e s f i na l f ol l ow i ng the t e rm i na t i on of

hi s di r e c tappe a l , he ha s one y e a ri n w hi c h t o f i l e af e de r a l pe t i t i on f o raw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . T h a t tim e is to lle d b y s ta tu te w he ne ve rapr ope r l y f

i l e d m ot i on f

ors t a t e pos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f i s pe ndi ng. 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . W e gr a nt e d aC O A t o de c i de w he the rD ow ns i s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of hi s l i m i t at i on s per i od . E qu i t abl e t ol l i ng i s an extra ordi naryre m edy, ho w ever , a n d c o u r ts m a y p e rm it its u s e o n ly w h e n o th e rm e th o d s o f to llin g a r e u n a v a ilab le . Just i ce v. U

ni ted Stat es , 6 F . 3d 1474, 1480 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( “ I ti s al ongs t a ndi ng m axi m of A ng l o-A m er i ca n l aw thatre l i ef i n equ i ty gener al l y i s i napp ropri at e w hen the m ovi ng pa r ty ha s a n a de qua t e r e m e dy a tl a w . ” ) . T he r e f or e , the f i r s tque s t i on w e m u s t a n s w e ris w h e th e rs ta tu to ry to llin g a lo n e m a k e s D o w n s ’ p e titio n tim e ly . A . S t a tut ory T ol l i ng D ow ns’ fe dera l l i m i t at i on s per i od began t o run O ct ob er18 , 19 99 , the day the F l or i daS upr e m e C our ti s s ue d i t s m a nda t e de ny i ng hi s s e c ond m ot i on f or p o s tc o n v ic tio n r e lie f

u n d e rF la . R . C r im . P . 3 .8 5 0 . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(2);14

N yla n d v. Mo o re , 216 F . 3d 1264, 1267 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng tha t3. 850 m ot i on re m ai ns pend i ng un t i l m andat e i ss ues) . T he di stri ctcourti nt erpret ed § 2244( d) ( 1) ’ s one - y e a rrul e t o m e a n the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od e xpi r e d O c t obe r17, 2 0 0 0 , 3 6 5 d a y s a f

te rth e m a n d a te is s u e d . A lth o u g h th a t c a lc u la tio n ap p e a r s to c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu to ry d ir e c tiv e lim itin g th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d to “o n e y e a r ,” thi s C our tha s s ugge s t e d tha tthe l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od s houl d be c a l c ul a t e d a c c or di ng t o the “ a nni ve r s a ry m e thod, ” unde rw hi c h the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od e xpi r e s on the a n n iv e r s a ry o f

th e d a te it b e g a n to ru n . Ferrei ra v. Sec’y, D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 494 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 89 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( no t i ng thatl i m i t at i on s per i od shou l d b e c al cul at ed u s in g “th e a n n iv e r s a ry d a te o f th e tr ig g e r in g e v e n t” ) ; accord U ni ted Stat es v. H u rst , 32 2 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 60 -61 (10 th C i r. 20 03 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a r c e llo , 212 F . 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 8 -0 9 (7 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). A p p l yi n g th e an n i v ersary m eth o d t o th i s case m e a ns D ow ns ’ l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w oul d ha ve e xpi r e d O c t obe r18, 2000— not O c to b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 0 , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld . W e e m p h a s iz e th e p e r io d “w o u ld ha ve ” e xpi r e d be c aus e the f i l i ng of D ow ns ’ s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on t ol l e d the lim ita tio n s p e r io d d u r in g th e p e n d e n c y o f th a t p e titio n . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng D ow ns ’ pe t i t i on w a s f i l e d one ye arand ei gh tdays af

t erhi s habea s l i m i t at i on s per i od expi re d, the courtdi d n oterrIn his briefs, Downs makes the tenuous a rgument that the Florida Supreme Court’s 4 failureto issue a mandatein his direct appe al means his fe deral limi tations period has not yet be gun . Under F lorida

law, a “ judgment a

nd sentenc ebe c omefinal f

or purp os e s o f t

herule ‘when any

such direct reviewproce eding s have c oncluded a nd jurisdiction to entertain a motion for post-c onviction relief returns to the sentencingcourt.’” Ma rrero v . S tate , 967 So. 2d 934, 9 3 6 (F l a. 2 d

DC A 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o ti n g W

ard v. Dugger , 508 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)) . In the normal c ourse of

events, Downs’ conviction would not havebecomefinal until the mandate issued, seeFla. R. App. P. 9.340(a). However, over the c ourse of two decades, Downs ha s igno re d th emis singmandate , a nd fi le d f ivemotion s f

or po stc onvictio n re view. Th e se motions receive d extensive consideration in the Florida trial a nd appellatecourts, which expressed no conc ern a

bout their jurisdiction to do so. Under these c ircumstance s, we will not second- guess the F lorida cour ts’ administration of their postconviction review proc ess.

15 i n fi n d i n g th e p et i t i o n u n t i m el y. A s D o w n s al l b u tco n ced es, b ecau se h i s att o rn eys 4 w a ite d u n til th e e le v e n th h o u rto f ile h is s ta te h ab e a s p e titio n , h e w a s r e q u ir e d to fi l e hi s f eder al habeas pet i t i on on D ec em ber 4, 20 01 , the nextbu si ness day f o llo w in g th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is p e titio n f

o rr e h e a r in g . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 6( a ) ( 1) ( e xc l ude s f r om c om put a t i on “ the da y of the a c t , e ve nt , or de f a ul ttha tbe gi ns the pe r i od” ) . I ns t e a d, the pe t i t i on w a s f i l e d D e c e m be r12, 2001, e ig h t d a y s a f

te rth e f e d e r a l lim ita tio n s p e r io d e x p ir e d . B . E qui t abl e T ol l i ng B e c aus e D ow ns ’ pe t i t i on w a s unt i m e l y f i l e d, the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d not c ons i de ri tunl e s s e i ghtorm or e da y s of the f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w e r e t o be e qui t abl y t ol l e d. C onc l udi ng tha tthi s C i r c ui t ’ s pr e c e de ntba rr e d the appl i c a t i on of equi t abl e t ol l i ng un der the ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the pe t i t i on. W e r e vi e w tha tde c i s i on de no vo . H el to n v. Sec’y f

o r D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 25 9 F . 3d 13 10 , 13 12 (11th C i r. 20 01 ).16

E q u itab le to llin g is ar e m e d y th a t m u s t b e u s e d s p a r in g ly , Ste e d v . H e ad , 219 F . 3d 1298, 1300 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ; tha ti s , i n e xtr e m e c a s e s w he r e f a i l ur e t o i nvoke th e p r in c ip le s o f

e q u ity w o u ld le a d to u n a c c e p tab ly u n ju s t o u tc o m e s , s e e , e .g ., Just i ce , 6 F .3 d a t 1 4 7 9 ( c itin g D a v id D . D o r a n , C o m m e n t, E qui table T ol l i ng of S ta tu to r y B e n e fit T im e L im ita tio n s : A C o n g r e s s io n a l I n te n t A n a lys is , 6 4 W a s h . L. R ev. 68 1, 68 2 (19 89 ) ( “ E qu i t abl e t ol l i ng , l i ke al l equi t abl e r em edi es , em er ged as the ‘ equi ty c ou rt s’ re spon se t o i nj ust i ce s r es ul t i ng fr om deci si on s of the ‘ l aw court s’ i n cas es i nv ol vi ng i nequ i t abl e c on du ct . ”) ). O ur prece dent s e st abl i sh that e q u itab le to llin g o f

th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d is w a rr a n te d “w h e n am o v a n t u n tim e ly f i l e s be c a us e of

e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s tha ta r e both be y ond hi s c ontr ol a nd un avoi dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence. ” St ee d , 219 F . 3d a t1300 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rk s o m itte d ) . T hi s C our tha s us e d e qui t abl e t ol l i ng t o e xt e nd the f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f orpr i s one r s s e e ki ng f

e de r a l r e vi e w of

the i rs t a t e c onvi c t i ons on a tl e a s ttw o pr i or oc c a s i ons . I n both c a s e s , how e ve r , the pe t i t i one r s ’ unt i m e l y f i l i ng w a s c aus e d by erroneou s i nform at i on supp l i ed t o them by st at e c ou rt s— no tby egre gi ou s a tt orney m is c o n d u c t. S

p o t t svi l le v. T

erry , 4 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; Knigh t v. Sc h o fie ld , 292 F . 3d 709, 711 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . O n m a ny oc c a s i ons , w e ha ve e x p la in e d th a t “[ m ]e r e a tto rn e y n e g lig e n c e [ w ill] n o t ju s tif y e q u itab le to llin g ,”Two additional circuits have not had oc casion to rule on thequestion directly, but have 5 discussed g enerally

the re lationship between attorney misconduct and e quitable tolling. The Court of Appe als f

or theF ir st C ircuit

ha s sug g e ste d th at alth ough “ g arden- va ri e ty”mis c on duc t is not a ground for

equitable tolling, “ [t ]hi s does not mean, however, that attorney error ca n never be amongthe grounds for e quitable tolling.” See Trapp v. Spencer, 479 F.3d 53, 60 ( 1st Cir. 2007). The Court of

Appeals for the F ourth Circuit, in dicta, favorably discussed ag ency

theory . Rouse v. Lee , 339 F.3d 238, 249 (4th Cir. 2003) (en ba nc). 17 St ee d , 2 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 0 , ap o in t w h ic h th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c e n tly a f f irm e d in L aw r e nc e v . Flor i da , — U .S . — , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . S even of ou r f

el l ow ci rc ui t s have c on fr on t ed w hether a tt orney m i sc on du ct go i ng beyond “ m er e negl i gence” may everconst i tut e a n extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance w arra nt i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng . A l tho ug h the se veri ty of m i sc on du ct a ddr e s s e d by e a c h C i r c ui tha s va r i e d gr e a t l y , the C our t s of A ppe a l s f

orthe S e c ond, T hi r d, F i f

th, N i nth, a nd T e nth C i r c ui t s ha ve c onc l ude d tha ts om e f orm s of s e r i ous a tt orne y m i s c onduc tm a y e nt i t l e ahabe a s pe t i t i one rt o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the f e d e r a l lim ita tio n s p e r io d . T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f

o rth e S e v e n th C ir c u it di sa gree s. U nt i l no w , thi s C i rc ui thas notbeen fac ed w i th the i ss ue.

5 T he C our tof

A ppe a l s f

orthe S e ve nth C i r c ui tha s a dopt e d abr i ght - l i ne approach t o request s f

or equi t abl e t ol l i ng prem i se d o n the m i sc on du ctof a pet i t i on er ’ s a tt orney. A pp l yi ng agencypri nci pl es , the ci rc ui tho l ds thatan a tt orne y ’ s a c t i ons a r e a l w a y s a ttr i but abl e t o the c l i e nti n the c ont e xtof p o s tc o n v ic tio n p r o c e e d in g s . Se e P o w e ll v . D a v is , 41 5 F . 3d 72 2, 72 7 (7th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Mo dr o w s ki v . Mo te , 3 2 2 F .3 d 9 6 5 , 9 6 8 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e S e v e n th18

C i r c ui tha s r e c ogni z e d onl y one e xc e pt i on t o the a ge nc y rul e a nd tha ti s the const i tut i on al ri gh tt o cou nsel w hi ch ar i se s i n the cont extof di re ctcr i m i nal p r o c e e d in g s . Se e J

ohns on v . McB r i de , 3 8 1 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 0 (7 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). B ecau se pe t i t i one r s ha ve no c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o c ouns e l i n f e de r a l pos t c onvi c t i on p r o c e e d in g s , C ole m an v . T hom ps on , 501 U . S . 722, 752- 54, 111 S . C t . 2546, 2566- 6 8 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , th e S e v e n th C ir c u it h a s h e ld th e s e v e r ity o f a tto rn e y m is c o n d u c t in habe a s pr oc e e di ngs i s i rr e l e va ntf orpurpos e s of

e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. N o l e ve l of a tt orne y m i s c onduc tc a n e ve rw a rr a nte qui t abl e t ol l i ng be c aus e a l l a c t s of m a lf e a s a n c e a r e a ttr ib u te d d ir e c tly to th e p e titio n e r . P o w e ll , 415 F . 3d a t727 ( “[ A ]tto rn e y m is c o n d u c t, w h e th e rlab e le d n e g lig e n t, g r o s s ly n e g lig e n t, o rw illf u l, is a ttr ib u tab le to th e c lie n t. . . .” ) . R e s ponde nt s ur ge thi s C our tt o f ol l ow the l e a d of

the S e ve nth C i r c ui tby h o l d i n g th ata cl i en ti s al w ays b o u n d b y th e m i st ak es o f h i s att o rn ey, reg ard l ess how e xtr e m e orf

a ra f i e l d f r om the c l i e nt ’ s di r e c t i ve s thos e a c t i ons m a y be . T he appr oa c h ha s i t s m e r i t s . N otonl y i s i te a s y t o a dm i ni s t e r , buti tr e c ogni z e s the im p o r ta n t d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s in w h ic h th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l is

“ fund am ent al and ess ent i al , ” G i de on v . W ai nw r i ght , 3 7 2 U .S . 3 3 5 , 3 4 4 , 8 3 S . C t. 792, 796 ( 1963) , a nd pos t c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs , i n w hi c h the pr ovi s i on ofAs an indig ent ca pital defendant, Downs wa s entitled to postconviction counsel under 6 federal a nd state law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) ; Fla. Stat. § 27.702(1). That does not mea n, however, that he w as entitled to eff ective a ssistance per se . Lawrence , 127 S. Ct . at 1085-86 (“ [A] State ’se ff

or t toa ssi st p ri so nersin p os tc onvictio n p ro c e e ding s doe s n ot m aketheState acc ountable for

a prisoner ’s delay

[i n filing his habe as petition]. . . . It would be per verseindeed if prov idingpriso nerswith p os tc onvictio n c ouns e l deprive d State s o f t hebene fit of

theAE DPA statute of limitations.”). 19 c o u n s e l is am a tte ro f

le g is la tiv e g r a c e . M o r e o v e r , th e “y o u rla w y e r , y o u rf au lt” 6 appr oa c h i s c ons i s t e ntw i th the ge ne r a l pr i nc i pl e tha tl a w y e r s a r e a ge nt s , a nd

“ cl i ent s m ustbe hel d acc ou nt abl e f or the ac t s a nd om i ss i on s of thei r a tt orneys . ” P io n e e rI

n v . Se r v . C o . v . B r u n s w ic k A s s o c . L td. P ’s h ip , 5 0 7 U . S. 3 8 0 , 3 9 6 , 1 1 3 S. C t . 14 89 , 14 99 (199 3). T he S up re m e C ou rti t se l f has i nv ok ed agency pri nci pl es t o h ol d a habeas pe t i t i one rt o hi s l a w y e r ’ s e rr or , a l be i ti n adi f f e r e ntc ont e xt . I n C ole m an , 5 0 1 U . S. at75 3-54 , 11 1 S . C t . at25 66 -67, coun se l for habeas pet i t i on erR og erC ol em an fi l ed an un t i m el y app ea l i n st at e c ou rt , there by depri vi ng the st at e c ou rt s of a n oppor tuni ty t o c ons i de rm a ny of C ol e m a n’ s f

e de r a l c l a i m s on pos t c onvi c t i on r e vi e w . A f

t e rhi s une xhaus t e d c l a i m s w e r e di s m i s s e d a s pr oc e dur a l l y de f aul t e d, C ol e m a n appe a l e d, c ont e ndi ng hi s l a w y e r ’ s ne gl i ge nc e c ons t i tut e d “ c aus e ” f or r e in s ta tin g th e c la im s u n d e rth e “c au s e a n d p r e ju d ic e ” te s t. I

d. at75 3, 11 1 S . C t . at 25 66 . R es t i ng i t s dec i si on on concerns abou tfe dera l i sm , the S up re m e C ou rt d is a g r e e d . I

d. T h e C o u r t n o te d d e f e n d a n ts h a v e n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to po st conv i ct i on coun se l , and there fore no m ea ns of i m pu t i ng thei r c ou nsel ’ s e rr ors20

t o th e S t at e; th erefo re, “ [a] tt o rn ey i g n o ran ce o r i n ad v ert en ce i s n o t‘ cau se’ b ecau se the a tt orne y i s the pe t i t i one r ’ s a ge ntw he n a c t i ng, orf a i l i ng t o a c t , i n f

ur the r a nc e of the l i t i gat i on , and the pet i t i on erm ust‘ bearthe ri sk of att orney e rr or. ’ ” I d. a t753, 111 S . C t . a t2566- 67 ( quot i ng Murray v . C arri er , 4 7 7 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 8 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 26 39 , 26 45 (198 6)). A l though C ole m an ar ose i n a di ff er entprocedural po sture a nd i m pl i ca t ed f e de r a l i s m c onc e rns nota ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e , i ti s i ns truc t i ve i ns of a ra s i tm a ke s the poi nt

— w hi c h w e do notdi s put e — tha ta n a tt orne y ’ s or di na ry ne gl i ge nc e m a y be a ttr ib u te d to th e c lie n t u n d e rg e n e r a l p r in c ip le s o f a g e n c y . W h a t C ole m an doe s not addres s, ho w ever , i s w hether a gency theory bar s r el i ef w hen a habeas pet i t i on er w h o h a s f

a ir ly p r e s e n te d h is f

e d e r a l c la im s to th e s ta te c o u r t in v o k e s e q u itab le to llin g b a s e d o n th e e g r e g io u s m is c o n d u c t o f p o s tc o n v ic tio n c o u n s e l. A l though the S e ve nth C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n P o w e ll s u g g e s ts th e a g e n c y ru le i s absol ut e, the rul e has se vera l w el l -r ec og ni ze d except i on s. F or exam pl e, un der fu n d am en tal t en ets o f a g en cy law , a p rin cip al is n o t ch ar g ed w ith an ag en t’ s a c tio n s o rk n o w le d g e w h e n th e a g e n t is a c tin g a d v e r s e ly to th e p r in c ip a l’s in te r e s ts . See I n re J L J I nc. , 9 8 8 F .2 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “[ T ]h e g e n e r a l ru le is thatan agent ’ s a ctagai nstthe i nt er es tof the pri nci pal i s voi d . . . . ”) ; Schl ueterv. V arner , 38 4 F . 3d 69 , 81 (3d C i r. 20 04 ) ( A m bro, J. , di ss ent i ng ) ( “ [W ] hen . . . an a tto rn e y c e a s e s a lto g e th e rto s e rv e th e in te r e s ts o f h is c lie n t, th e la w o f

a g e n c y is21

c le a rth a t th e a tto rn e y a c ts a lo n e .” ) ; B alday aque , 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 5 4 ( J a c o b s , J ., c onc urr i ng) ( “ [ W ] he n a n a ge nta c t s i n am a nne rc om pl e t e l y a dve r s e t o the pri nci pal ’ s i nt er es t , the pri nci pal i s notchar ged w i th the agent ’ s m i sdee ds. ”) ; se e a l so R e s t a t e m e nt( T hi r d) of A ge nc y § 5. 04 ( 2006) ( “ [ N ] ot i c e of af a c ttha ta n a ge nt k n o w s o rh a s r e a s o n to k n o w is n o t im p u te d to th e p r in c ip a l if th e a g e n t a c ts a dve r s e l y t o the pr i nc i pa l i n atr a ns a c t i on orm a tt e r , i nt e ndi ng t o a c ts ol e l y f orthe a ge nt ’ s ow n purpos e s orthos e of a nothe rpe r s on. ” ) . E xt e ndi ng thi s rul e t o the h ab eas co n t ex t , i th as b een su g g est ed th atw h en an att o rn ey’ s co n d u cti s so egre gi ou s i tam ou nt s t o a de f ac to t e rm i na t i on of

r e pr e s e nt a t i on, i tw oul d be im p r o p e rto h o ld th e c lie n t to th e a c tio n s o f h is a g e n t. Se e , e . g. , B alday aque , 338 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 ( J a c o b s , J ., c o n c u rr in g ) ; see a l so R o u se , 339 F . 3d a t250 n. 14 (e qu i t abl e t ol l i ng m aybe approp ri at e w here att orney m i sc on du ctre ac hes the l evel of “ ut t erabando nm ent ”) . A l though the l a w of

a ge nc y i s us e f

ul i n a na l y z i ng the a tt orne y - c l i e nt re l at i on shi p i n m any c on t ext s, the except i on s t o the rul e r evea l agencytheory has its lim its . T h e ru le th a t ap e titio n e rm u s t a lw a y s b e a rth e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is a tt orne y ’ s m i s c onduc ti s une qui voc a l

— y e tbr i ght - l i ne rul e s do notgove rn the c o u r t’s e x e r c is e o f

its e q u itab le p o w e r s . Se e F is he rv . J ohns on , 174 F . 3d 710, 713 ( 5th C i r . 1999) ( “ A s adi s c r e t i ona ry doc tr i ne tha tturns on the f a c t s a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

ap a r tic u la rc a s e , e q u itab le to llin g d o e s n o t le n d its e lf to b r ig h t-22

lin e ru le s .” ) ; a cco rd Sp i t sy n , 3 4 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 1 ; V

alv e rde v . St i ns on , 224 F . 3d 129, 1 3 4 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . I n th e wo r d s o f J u s t i c e F r a n k f

u r t e r , “ E q u i ty e s c h e ws m ec hani ca l rul es ; i tdepend s on fl exi bi l i ty. ” H olm be r g v . A rm br e c ht , 3 2 7 U . S. 39 2, 39 6, 66 S . C t . 58 2, 58 4 (19 46 ). Iti s perhaps for thi s r ea son thatevery C i rc ui tC ou rtof A pp ea l s other than the S e ve nth t o ha ve a ns w e r e d the que s t i on di r e c t l y t a ke s the pos i t i on tha ts e r i ous a tt orne y m i s c onduc tm a y c ons t i tut e a n e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e f orpurpos e s of e q u itab le to llin g . Se e M a r tin , 40 8 F . 3d 10 93 (“ se ri ou s a tt orney m i sc on du ct , as op po se d t o m er e negl i gence, m ayw arra ntequi t abl e t ol l i ng ”) (quo t at i on s om i tt ed); a cco rd Fle m i ng v . E v ans , 481 F . 3d 1249 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ; B alday aque , 338 F . 3d 1 4 5 ; Sp i t sy n , 345 F . 3d 796; W

y nn , 2 9 2 F .3 d 2 2 6 ; N

a ra , 2 6 4 F . 3 d 3 1 0 . T h ese c our t s ha ve r e c ogni z e d ac r i t i c a l di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n m e r e a tt orne y ne gl i ge nc e a nd s e r i ous m i s c onduc t , hol di ng tha tthe f orm e rdoe s notw a rr a nte qui t abl e t ol l i ng b e c a u s e it is n o t a n e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e . Se e , e . g. , I rw i n v . D e

p’ t of V etera n s A f f a i rs , 498 U . S . 89, 96, 111 S . C t . 453, 458 ( 1990) ( “ [ T ] he pr i nc i pl e s of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng . . . do note xt e nd t o w ha ti s a tbe s taga r de n va r i e ty c l a i m of e x c u s ab le n e g le c t.” ) ; B alday aque , 338 F . 3d a t152 ( not i ng “ s i m pl e m i s t a ke s about th e ru le s ap p lie d to th e d e a d lin e s f o rf ilin g o f h ab e a s p e titio n s ” a r e “o r d in a ry ” ) . B utw he n a n a tt orne y ’ s a c t i ons e xt e nd be y ond e ve ry da y m i s t a ke s i nt o the r e a l m of se ri ou s m i sc on du ct , these court s hol d thati n som e c i rc um st ance s s uch m al fe as ance23

m a y be “ f

a re nough out s i de the r a nge of be ha vi ortha tr e a s onabl y c oul d be expect ed by a c l i entthat[i t ] m aybe consi dere d ‘ extra ordi nary . ’ ” I d. T hus , ourf

e l l ow c i r c ui t s ha ve de c l i ne d t o i m put e a tt orne y m i s c onduc tt o a c l i e ntw he r e the a tt orne y ha s m a de m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons t o the c l i e nt , di s r e ga r de d the c lie n t’s in s tru c tio n s , r e f u s e d to r e tu rn d o c u m e n ts , o rab a n d o n e d th e c lie n t’s c a s e . I n B alday aque , for e xam pl e, the pet i t i on er ’ s a tt orney i gn ored a di re ct i ve t o fi l e a p e titio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , f a ile d to c o n d u c t a n y le g a l r e s e a r c h , w r o n g ly advi se d the pet i t i on er ’ s w i fe thatthe fi l i ng peri od had exp i re d, and fai l ed t o m ee t o rs p e a kw ith th e p e titio n e ra t a n y p o in t d u r in g th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n . I d. T he S e c ond C i rc ui thel d these ac t i on s, t aken t og ether, const i tut ed extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s th a t m ig h t w a rr a n t e q u itab le to llin g . I d. S i m i l a r l y , i n Fle m i ng , the T e nth C i r c ui the l d e qui t abl e t ol l i ng m i ghtbe approp ri at e w here an att orney m ade r epea t ed m i sr epre se nt at i on s t o h i s c l i entov er th e c o u r s e o f

ay e a rc o n c e rn in g th e s ta tu s o f th e c lie n t’s p e titio n f

o rs ta te p o s tc onvi c t i on r e l i e f

. 481 F . 3d a t1256- 57. N e a r l y ay e a rbe f or e the e xpi r a t i on of

the A E D P A l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, F l e m i ng’ s m othe rha d r e t a i ne d a n a tt orne y t o r e pr e s e nt F le m in g in s ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p r o c e e d in g s . I d. at1 2 5 6 . O n sev eral o ccasi o n s, F le m in g in q u ir e d in to th e s ta tu s o f h is s ta te p e titio n ( th e f

ilin g o f w h ic h w o u ld to ll th e f e d e r a l lim ita tio n s p e r io d , se e 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(2)), and repeat edl y r ec ei ved f a ls e a s s u r a n c e s th a t th e p e titio n w a s b e in g p r e p a r e d a n d w o u ld b e f ile d s h o r tly .B y c on do ningthemetho dse mpl oye d b y our f e llo w c ircuit s in

c on duc tingan e quita

ble 7 analysis , w edono t sug g e st w ewould arriveat th esamere sult w ereweto c on front th efac ts presented those cour

ts. W e conf

ine our a nalysis to the facts bef

ore us only, and re servefor 24 I d. W h e n n o p e titio n w a s f ile d , F le m in g d r a f

te d h is o w n p e titio n a n d s u b m itte d it t o the a tt orne y f

orr e vi e w a nd f

i l i ng. T he a tt orne y , how e ve r , f a i l e d t o f i l e the p e titio n u n til th e A E D P A lim ita tio n s p e r io d h a d e x p ir e d . I d. T h e T e n th C ir c u it h e ld th e s e a lle g a tio n s , a t am in im u m , w a rr a n te d a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g to de t e rm i ne w he the rF l e m i ng w a s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng i n l i ghtof the a tto rn e y ’s m is c o n d u c t. I d. a t1256- 57. I n M a r tin , th e E i g h th C i rcu i tg ran t ed eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g t o a p et i t i o n er w h o se a tto rn e y d is r e g a r d e d in s tru c tio n s to f ile am o tio n u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 , r e p e a te d ly lie d to the pet i t i on erand h i s w i fe abou tthe fi l i ng deadl i ne and the st atus of the ca se , r e f us e d t o c om m uni c a t e w i th the pe t i t i one rorhi s f a m i l y , a nd f

a i l e d t o r e turn the p e titio n e r ’s d o c u m e n ts . 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 0 9 6 . T h e F if th a n d N in th C ir c u its ha ve c ondone d the us e of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng unde rs i m i l a rc i r c um s t a nc e s , e xt e ndi ng the f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w he n, a m ong othe rthi ngs , c ouns e l l i e d aboutf i l i ng a habe a s pe t i t i on, W

y nn , 292 F . 3d a t230, a nd f a i l e d t o f i l e af e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on a f te rb e in g in s tru c te d to d o s o , Sp i t sy n , 345 F . 3d a t801- 02. W e be l i e ve the f

a c t - s pe c i f

i c , c a s e - by - c a s e appr oa c h t a ke n by the m a j or i ty of ourf e l l ow c i r c ui t s i s be tt e rs ui t e d t o a n e qui t abl e i nqui ry tha n i s the br i ght - l i ne approach t o egregi ou s a tt orney m i sc on du ctadop t ed by the S eventh C i rc ui t . In 7another

day the question whether facts such as those presente d in Baldayaque , Fleming, Ma rtin , W ynn , and Spitsyn would

c on stitutee xtraordin ary

c ircums tanc e s under t

helaw o f t

hisCircuit . 25 det erm i ni ng w hether D ow ns has a l l eged extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s that , i f true, w o u ld e n title h im to r e lie f , w e m u s t c o n s id e ra ll r e le v a n t f a c ts . T h e s e in c lu d e h is u n eq u i v o cal , rep eat ed d em an d s th ath i s att o rn eys fi l e h i s h ab eas p et i t i o n ; h i s cl o se tr a c k in g o f

h is a tto rn e y s ’ w o rka n d th e ap p lic ab le f e d e r a l d e a d lin e s ; a n d h is c o u n s e l’s o v e r t d e c e p tio n in r e p r e s e n tin g th e y h a d f ile d ato llin g p e titio n in s ta te c our tw he n the y ha d noti n f a c tdone s o, the r e by de pr i vi ng hi m of s e ve r a l m onths of hi s s t a tut or i l y - gua r a nt e e d one - y e a rf e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. A lth o u g h D o w n s ’ p e r s is te n c e r e s u lte d in h is c o u n s e l u ltim a te ly f ilin g h is s ta te h ab e a s p e titio n o n e d a y b e f o r e h is f e d e r a l lim ita tio n s p e r io d e x p ir e d , h is coun se l ’ s dec ei ptand d el ayno nethel es s puthi m i n an u nt enabl e posi t i on . W e s ay unt e nabl e be c aus e the r e w a s no w a y D ow ns , i m pr i s one d a s he w a s , w oul d r e c e i ve not i c e of the s t a t e c our t ’ s rul i ng i n t i m e t o f i l e hi s f e de r a l pe t i t i on w i thi n the one da y r e m a i ni ng i n hi s f

e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. T hus , thr oughoutthe c our s e of the i rr e pr e s e nt a t i on, c ouns e l thw a r t e d D ow ns ’ be s te f f or t s t o f i l e at i m e l y pe t i t i on, w o rk in g a g a in s t h is in te r e s ts a t e v e ry tu rn . B ey on d tho se fa ct s ( w hi ch ar e hi gh l y troub l i ng i n them se l ves) , w e not e that D ow ns, a c api t al defe nd antse eki ng fi rs t -t i m e f eder al re vi ew of hi s c on st i tut i on alAlthough D owns is a ca pital defendant, we ha

ve not g iven that fact any special weight 8 in a sse ssingwh e ther h emay beentitle d toe quita

bletol ling . Weno tethat Barbour v. Haley , 471 F.3d 1222, 1231- 32 (11th Cir. 2006), sug g ests this Ci rcuit would not favor such an a pproach. Se eals o Johnson , 3 81 F .3 d at 59 0- 91 ; Ro us e , 339 F.3d at 253-54. Bu t se eFa hy v . H or n , 240 F .3 d 2 39 , 2 44 -4 5 ( 3d

Cir . 2 00 1) ; Trapp , 479 F.3d at 61. 26 c l a i m s , f i l e d hi s pe t i t i on am e r e e i ghtda y s out s i de the s t a tut ory l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. 8 C f . L onc harv . T

hom as , 517 U . S . 314, 324, 116 S . C t . 1293, 1299 ( 1996) (“ D i sm i ss al of a firs t habeas pet i t i on i s apart i cul ar l y s er i ou s m att er , for that di s m i s s a l de ni e s the pe t i t i one rthe pr ot e c t i ons of the G r e a tW r i te nt i r e l y , r i s ki ng in ju ry to a n im p o r ta n t in te r e s t in h u m a n lib e r ty .” ) ; ac c ord W y nn , 2 9 2 F .3 d a t 2 3 0 . In re vi ew i ng coun se l ’ s a l l eged cond uct , w e a gai n em ph as i ze D ow ns w as r e pr e s e nt e d by the s a m e c ouns e l thr oughouthi s s t a t e a nd f e de r a l pos t c onvi c t i on proceedi ng s. D uri ng the course of re pres ent at i on , coun se l ’ s a l l eged behavior r an the ga m utf

r om a c t s of

m e r e ne gl i ge nc e t o a c t s of gr os s ne gl i ge nc e t o a c t s of ou tri gh tw i l l ful dece i t . In consi deri ng w hether the cond uctof coun se l w as extra ordi nary , w e w i l l no tdi ss ec tthe cont i nu i ng course of cond ucti n w hi ch co u n sel en g ag ed , b u trath er v i ew co u n sel ’ s b eh av i o r as a w h o l e. C o n seq u en t l y, a l though the c ul m i na t i ng e ve ntw hi c h r e nde r e d D ow ns ’ f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on un t i m el y w as coun se l ’ s l at e f i l i ng of the pet i t i on , thatordi naryac tof negl i gence c a n n o t b e is o la te d f

r o m c o u n s e l’s a lle g e d ly e g r e g io u s m is c o n d u c t. I n the e nd, w e c a nnots a y w he the re xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s a r e pr e s e nt tha te nt i t l e D ow ns t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng be c aus e the di s tr i c tc our tm a de no f i ndi ngs27

of f a c tw i th r e s pe c tt o w he the rc ouns e l ’ s be ha vi orw a s a s appa l l i ng a s D ow ns a l l e ge s a nd the w r i tt e n r e c or d s ugge s t s . W e c a n, how e ve r , a ns w e rthe que s t i on on w hi c h the c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty w a s gr a nt e d: A s s um i ng D ow ns ’ a l l e ga t i ons are tru e, h e h as sh o w n th e ex i st en ce o f ex trao rd i n ary ci rcu m st an ces. O u r p reced en t s req u i re n o to n l y “ ex trao rd i n ary ci rcu m st an ces, ” b u tal so c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a r e b e y o n d th e p e titio n e r ’s c o n tr o l a n d u n a v o id ab le e v e n w ith d ilig e n c e . Se e Sa n dv ik , 1 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 1 ; Jo h n so n v. Flo ri da D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 513 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 20 08 ). In thi s c as e, the fa ct s D ow ns has a l l eged, i f true, m eetb o th st an d ard s. W e ha ve he l d on pr e vi ous oc c a s i ons tha t“ [ d] ue di l i ge nc e . . . doe s not re qu i re a pri soner t o u nd ert ake r epea t ed exerc i se s i n fut i l i ty or t o exh austevery i m agi nabl e opt i on , bu tra ther t o m ake r ea sonabl e e ff ort s. ” A ron v. U

ni ted Stat es , 29 1 F . 3d 70 8, 71 2 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). “ M oreover, the du e di l i gence i nq ui ryi s a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d one tha tm us tt a ke i nt o a c c ountthe c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nta nd the re al i ty of the pri son sys t em . ” I d. ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e f a c ts D o w n s a lle g e s , if

tru e , e s tab lis h th a t h e a c te d w ith d u e d ilig e n c e to e n s u r e h is p e titio n w o u ld b e tim e ly f ile d . B e tw e e n J u n e a n d N o v e m b e r2 0 0 1 , D o w n s w r o te t o thr e e C C R C a tt orne y s t o e xpr e s s c onc e rn ove rthe runni ng of the A E D P A f

i l i ng p e r io d a n d to u r g e th e f ilin g o f h is f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n o ra n a d d itio n a l s ta te c o u r t p le a d in g . I n a d d itio n , D o w n s a tte m p te d to a s s is t h is a tto rn e y s in d r a f tin g h is28

f e d e r a l p e titio n b yp r o v id in g th e m w ith e ith e rad r a f t p e titio n o ralis t o f

is s u e s to b e in c lu d e d in th e p e titio n . T h e s e a lle g a tio n s s u g g e s t D o w n s a c te d w ith ap p r o p r ia te d ilig e n c e . T hatl ea ves one fi nal qu es t i on : w hether the extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s a l l e ge dl y pr e s e nt e d by thi s c a s e w e r e be y ond D ow ns ’ c ontr ol . N e i the rour pr e c e de nt s northos e of

othe rc our t s ha ve l i nge r e d m uc h on thi s f i na l pr ong of

the equi ty a nal ys i s, oft en col l apsi ng i ti nt o the qu es t i on w hether e xtra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s h a v e b e e n s h o w n . Se e , e . g. , P a c e v . Di Gu g l i e lmo , 544 U . S . 408, 418, 125 S . C t . 1807, 1814 ( 2005) ( “ al i t i ga nts e e ki ng e qui t abl e t ol l i ng be a r s the b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g tw o e le m e n ts : ( 1 ) th a t h e h a s b e e n p u r s u in g h is r ig h ts di l i gent l y, and (2) thatsom e e xtra ordi naryci rc um st ance st oo d i n h i s w ay ”) ; L aw re nce , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 1 0 8 5 ( s a m e ) ; A rthu r v . A l len , 4 5 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 5 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( equi t abl e t ol l i ng “ m aybe appl i ed i f the pet i t i on erdem on stra t es ( 1) di l i ge nc e i n hi s e f

f or t s t o t i m e l y f

i l e ahabe a s pe t i t i on a nd ( 2) e xtr a or di na ry a nd una voi dabl e c i r c um s t a nc e s ” ) . A s i n the c ont e xtof di l i ge nc e , ape t i t i one rne e d not s how tha ts upe rhum a n e f f or t s m i ghtha ve e nabl e d hi m t o s urm ountthe extra ordi naryob st ac l es w hi ch i m peded h i s t i m el y f i l i ng . H e m ust , ho w ever , de m ons tr a t e tha tthe e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h i m pe de d hi s t i m e l y f i l i ng w e r e o n e s h e w a s r e a s o n ab ly u n ab le to c o n tr o l.Ac c ordingto D owns , la wyersa ske d him to re view a dra ft of thestateha

be a s p e tition

in 9 late May 1999. It is unclear at what point in the summer he wa s falsely told the petition had been f iled. It appea

rs from his letters to c ounsel that he unc overe d the truth shortly before September 3, 1999. 29 I f th e f a c ts D o w n s h a s a lle g e d a r e tru e , h e h a s m a d e th e r e q u ir e d s h o w in g . T h e e g r e g io u s m is c o n d u c t o f D o w n s ’ la w y e r s w a s n o t o f ak in d D o w n s c o u ld im m e d ia te ly a s c e r ta in . E v id e n c e o f h is la w y e r s ’ u n tru s tw o r th in e s s s u r f a c e d s lo w ly a n d c o u n s e l’s c o m m u n ic a tio n s th r o u g h o u t th e c o u r s e o f r e p r e s e n ta tio n le f

t it un cl ea r w hether a nd w hen cou nsel had d ra ft ed and fi l ed D ow ns’ st at e a nd fe dera l habe a s pe t i t i ons . D ow ns t ook prude nt , pe r s i s t e nta c t i on t o r e m i nd hi s l a w y e r s of im m in e n t d e a d lin e s a n d d id h is b e s t to r e m a in in f o rm e d o f th e s ta tu s o f

h is s ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s a s th e y r e la te d to h is f e d e r a l lim ita tio n s p e r io d . Y e t, d e s p ite s e ndi ng r e gul a rl e tt e r s t o c ouns e l , pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n pe r i odi c m e e t i ngs , a nd r e que s t i ng c onf

i rm a t i on tha thi s s t a t e a nd f e de r a l m ot i ons w e r e be i ng dr a f t e d a nd f i l e d i n at i m e l y m a nne r , D ow ns w a s m i s l e d by hi s l a w y e r s . C ouns e l l i e d about ha vi ng f i l e d D ow ns ’ s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on i n the s um m e rof 1999, de pr i vi ng hi m of a s m a ny a s thr e e m onths of hi s f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od dur i ng at i m e i n w hi c h he ha d no r e a s on t o s us pe c thi s c a s e w a s notpr oc e e di ng i n at i m e l y f a s hi on. 9 O nce hi s l aw ye rs ’ dece i tca m e t o l i gh t , D ow ns had l es s than si x w ee ks l ef t before hi s f

eder all i m i t at i on s per i od expi re d. D uri ng thi s t i m e, hi s l aw ye rs m ai nt ai ned p osse ss i on of hi s l egal fi l es . U nfortun at el y, because hi s l aw ye rsDo wn s f ile d his f e deral ha be a s p e tition

in t heMiddleDi stric t of

F lorida . That c ourt 10 routinely strikes and returns pro se f ilings of pa

rties who are represented by counsel, which means that “ even a

savvy petitioner, who may

see theclock r

unning out on his habe as time, ca n only cajole [or] plead with his counsel to file the petition t imely .” Thomas v. McD onough , 452 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1206-07 (M.D . Fla. 2006) . 30 c o n tin u e d to d e la y , b y th e tim e D o w n s ’ s ta te h ab e a s p e titio n w a s f in a lly f ile d , h is f e de r a l habe a s l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od ha d a l l bute xpi r e d. W i th onl y one da y r e m a i ni ng i n w hi ch t o fi l e at i m el y f eder al pet i t i on fol l ow i ng the deni al of hi s s t at e habeas pet i t i on , D ow ns had l i tt l e c ho i ce bu tt o con t i nu e r el yi ng on coun se l : had h e f i re d h is la w y e r s a n d tr ie d to f ile ap e titio n h im s e lf

a f te rh e r e c e iv e d n o tic e o f th e s ta te c our t ’ s de c i s i on, he w oul d ha ve m i s s e d the one - da y w i ndow f orf i l i ng a nd ha d he tr i e d t o f i l e ape t i t i on on hi s ow n, i tw oul d ha ve be e n s tr i c ke n. F ur the r , D ow ns 10 r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve i nf e rr e d f r om c ouns e l ’ s r e turn of hi s pr o s e f

e de r a l pe t i t i on tha tc ouns e l e i the rha d f i l e d the pe t i t i on a s di r e c t e d orw e r e pr e pa r e d t o do s o the d a y th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d th e p e n d in g p e titio n f o rr e h e a r in g . Gi v e n th e u n i q u e wa y i n wh i c h th e f a c t s a l l e g e d l y u n f

o l d e d i n th i s c a s e , we co n cl u d e th e ex trao rd i n ary ci rcu m st an ces th atl ed t o th e u n t i m el y fi l i n g o f D o w n s’ habeas pet i t i on “ st oo d i n h i s w ay , ” L aw re nce , 12 7 S . C t . at10 85 , and w er e “b e y o n d h is c o n tr o l,” Sa n dv ik , 1 7 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 7 1 . I n r e a c h i n g th i s c o n c l u s i o n , we em ph as i ze thatt od ay ’ s opi ni on do es no thi ng t o al t erthe fa ctthatordi naryatt orney n e g lig e n c e d o e s n o t w a rr a n t e q u itab le to llin g . L aw re nce , 127 S . C t . a t1085; H o w e ll , 4 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 2 . W h e n a n a tto rn e y m is c a lc u la te s ad e a d lin e , f a ils to31

adequat el y r ai se a pot ent i al l y m er i t ori ou s c l ai m , or otherw i se m akes a run -of- them i l l m i st ake, a habeas pet i t i on erm ustl i ve w i th the consequences of the error. In thi s c a s e , how e ve r , the a l l e ge d m i s de e ds of D ow ns ’ c ouns e l w e ntf a rbe y ond m is c a lc u la tin g th e d a te o n w h ic h h is f e d e r a l p e titio n w a s d u e . C o u n s e l a lle g e d ly l i e d t o D ow ns on am a tt e rof l e ga l i m por t a nc e a nd e vi nc e d utt e rdi s r e ga r d f or D o w n s ’ r e p e a te d d ir e c tiv e to f ile h is h ab e a s p e titio n . W e ig h in g th o s e f a c ts w ith the othe runi que a s pe c t s of D ow ns ’ c a s e de s c r i be d above , w e f i nd tha t , i f

pr ove n, hi s a l l e ga t i ons e s t abl i s h c i r c um s t a nc e s s o e xtr a or di na ry , c onduc ts o di l i ge nt , a nd m i s c onduc ts o f

a rout s i de hi s c ontr ol , a s t o m e r i te qui t abl e t ol l i ng of s om e por t i on o f D o w n s’ fe d er al li m it atio n s p er io d . T h er ef o re , w e v ac ate th e d istrict co u rt’s f in d in g th a t e q u itab le to llin g is u n e q u iv o c a lly u n a v a ilab le u n d e rth e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . U l t i m at el y, w h eth er eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g i s w arran t ed i s a d eci si o n th atm u strest on fa ct s, no tal l egat i on s. O n rem and, the di stri ctcourtshou l d con du ctan e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe f a c t s D ow ns ha s a l l e ge d a r e true , a nd t o m ak e an y ad d i t i o n al factu al fi n d i n g s rel ev an tt o th e eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g an al ysi s. T hen, shou l d the fa ct s of thi s c as e prove t o b e a s e xtra ordi naryas D ow ns has a lle g e d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld d e te rm in e w h a t p e r io d o f tim e s h o u ld b e e q u itab ly t ol l e d.32

W e not e ge ne r a l l y tha te qui t abl e t ol l i ng w oul d notbe a va i l abl e f ora ny pe r i od of t i m e f ol l ow i ng D e c e m be r4, 2001, w he n D ow ns ’ f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons p e r io d e x p ir e d . C

f . Moor e v . Cr os by , 321 F . 3d 1377, 1381 ( 11th C i r . 2003) (f i nd i ng st atut ory t ol l i ng do es no top er at e t o revi ve an expi re d l i m i t at i on s per i od ). A s s um i ng the f

a c t s be f or e us a r e true , a n obvi ous c hoi c e f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng w ou l d b e f

rom the t i m e D ow ns’ coun se l t ol d h i m hi s s t at e habeas pet i t i on had b ee n f ile d to th e tim e it b e c a m e c le a rto D o w n s th a t c o u n s e l’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n w a s alie . Ne v e r th e l e s s , n o tk n o wi n g h o w th e f a c t s wi l l u n f

o l d a tth e e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g , we do notpr e -

j udge the t i m e f

orw hi c h e qui t abl e t ol l i ng m a y be a va i l abl e . W e l e a ve th a t u ltim a te d e c is io n in th e c ap ab le h a n d s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. C . A ctual Inno ce nce A s a n al t ernat e groun d for re l i ef , D ow ns cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y r e f u s in g to c o n s id e rw h e th e rh is c la im th a t h e is in e lig ib le f o r( o r“a c tu a lly i nnoc e ntof

” ) the de a th pe na l ty e nt i t l e d hi m t o f e de r a l habe a s r e vi e w of a ny p r o c e d u r a lly d e f

au lte d c la im s . Sc h lu

p v . D e lo , 513 U . S . 298, 315, 115 S . C t . 851, 8 6 1 (1 9 9 5 ) (cl ai m th atco n st i tu t i o n al erro r l ed t o co n v i ct i o n o f i n n o cen tp erso n i s

“ no ti t se l f aconst i tut i on al cl ai m , bu ti nst ea d a gat ew aythrou gh w hi ch a habeas pet i t i on erm ustpass t o h ave hi s otherw i se barr ed const i tut i on al cl ai m consi dere d o n th e m e r its .” ) .33

A p e titio n e rw h o c la im s th a t h e is in e lig ib le f o rth e d e a th p e n a lty m a y o b ta in r e v ie w o f

d e f au lte d f e d e r a l c la im s o n ly if

h e s h o w s th a t “n o r e a s o n ab le ju r o rw o u ld have foun d [hi m ] el i gi bl e f or the death p enal ty und erthe appl i cabl e s t at e l aw ” had the j ury he a r d the e vi de nc e hi s l a w y e rf a i l e d t o pr e s e nta ttr i a l ors e nt e nc i ng. Sa w ye r , 5 0 5 U .S . a t 3 3 6 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 2 5 1 7 ; Jo h n so n v. S i n g leta ry , 938 F . 2d 1166, 11 83 n. 46 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). D ow ns po i nt s t o fou r pi ec es of evi dence notpres ent ed a thi s tr i a l w hi c h he c ont e nds e nt i t l e hi m t o r e l i e f . T he s e i nc l ude the de pos i t i on of hi s dec ea se d g ra nd m other, w ho prov i des a n al i bi for hi m atthe t i m e of the m urder; the de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony of hi s s i s t e r , w ho na m e s he re x- boy f r i e nd, L a rry J ohns on, a s the tr i gge rm a n; a nd f i r s ta nd s e c ond- ha nd s t a t e m e nt s of ac o- c ons pi r a t orna m i ng J o h n s o n a s th e s h o o te r . A lth o u g h w e n o te th e s u b s ta n c e o f m u c h o f th is e v id e n c e w a s p r e s e n te d to a n d c o n s id e r e d b y th e ju ry th a t r e s e n te n c e d D o w n s to d e a th in 1 9 9 1 , s e e D ow ns , 57 2 S o. 2d at89 8-99 , w e nee d n otdeci de atthi s t i m e w hether hi s c l ai m of ac tual i nnoc e nc e e nt i t l e s hi m t o r e vi e w of a ny c l a i m s tha tm a y be de f aul t e d. O n r e m a nd, s h o u ld th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f in d D o w n s is n o t e n title d to e q u itab le to llin g , it s h o u ld c ons i de rw he the rD ow ns i s e nt i t l e d t o r e vi e w of hi s de f aul t e d c l a i m s unde rthe Sa w yer s ta n d a r d . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.