Opinion ID: 857107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misled or Prevented

Text: Madden argues that he was misled by the dismissal of his second habeas petition on the grounds of a pending appeal, as he believed that the one-year limitations period had not yet begun to run. This contention is without merit. Madden received notice in late September or early October 2008 that his state habeas application could not be accepted because the mandate had not issued. At the time, the law in this circuit was clear that the mandate date was not relevant for determining when a conviction became final for § 2244(d)(1)(A) purposes. See Roberts, 319 F.3d at 694-95. Indeed, Madden’s communications with the state court reflect that he was aware that the one-year limitations period had begun to run, as he requested that the state appellate court issue the mandate so that he could file a state petition before the time to file a federal petition had elapsed. His apparent confusion regarding the permissibility of filing a federal habeas petition prior to exhausting his state remedies does not excuse his untimely filing and does not entitle him to equitable tolling. Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171-73 (5th Cir. 2000). Nor was Madden prevented in an extraordinary way from asserting his rights. The magistrate judge stated that Madden was faced with the “dilemma” of either waiting for a mandate or exhausting his state remedies. Yet Madden could have resolved this false dilemma by filing a protective federal petition while concurrently seeking a stay. We acknowledge that the delay itself was unusual, not only in light of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 18.1, which provides for the prompt issuance of mandates, but also in light of Gonzalez, where the Supreme Court noted that a delay greater than one year would be rare, 132 S. Ct. at 655. However, Madden’s inability to compel the issuance of the mandate does not mean that he was prevented from filing a federal petition. While Madden may have been confused about when the limitations period commenced, neither his pro se status nor his unfamiliarity with the law suffices 10 Case: 11-10690 Document: 00512195689 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/03/2013 No. 11-10690 as a basis for equitable tolling. Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that “neither a plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with the legal process nor his lack of representation during the applicable filing period merits equitable tolling”). Because Madden could have elected to file a protective federal petition and request a stay, we hold that he was not prevented from asserting his rights, and that equitable tolling does not apply.