Opinion ID: 3068508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Review and Guiding Principles

Text: We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to apply equitable tolling. See United States v. Wynn, 292 F.3d 226, 229-30 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 713 (5th Cir. 1999)). “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Equitable tolling “turns on the facts and circumstances of [each] particular case” and “does not lend itself to bright-line rules.” Fisher, 174 F.3d at 713; see also Holland, 130 S. Ct. at 2563 (collecting cases). The doctrine “applies principally where the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In the context of alleged court-made errors, “extraordinary 5 Case: 10-10477 Document: 00511839368 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/30/2012 No. 10-10477 circumstances exist where a petitioner is misled by an affirmative, but incorrect, representation of a district court on which he relies to his detriment.” Cousin v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843, 848 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927, 931-32 (5th Cir. 2000)).