Opinion ID: 77603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spottsville's Petition Is Timely Based on Equitable Tolling.

Text: 16 Although his period of statutory tolling ended on March 10, 2004, Spottsville alternatively argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling during the pendency of his attempted appeal until its dismissal on September 15, 2004. Equitable tolling can be applied to prevent the application of AEDPA's statutory deadline when `extraordinary circumstances' have worked to prevent an otherwise diligent petitioner from timely filing his petition. Helton v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 259 F.3d 1310, 1312 (11th Cir.2001). A determination as to whether rare and exceptional circumstances are presented requires the examination of the facts in each case, Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1253 (11th Cir.2006), and [t]he burden of establishing entitlement to this extraordinary remedy plainly rests with the petitioner, Wade v. Battle, 379 F.3d 1254, 1265 (11th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). 17 Spottsville argues that he sent his application for a certificate of probable cause to the wrong court in reliance on the misleading instructions of the state habeas court. Although we have denied equitable tolling when a retained attorney misled a pro se petitioner, see Howell v. Crosby, 415 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir.2005); Helton, 259 F.3d at 1312, we have reasoned that equitable tolling may be warranted when a government official has misled a petitioner, see Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F.3d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir.2005) (extraordinary circumstances include when the State's conduct prevents the petitioner from timely filing); Knight v. Schofield, 292 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir.2002) (granting equitable tolling to petitioner misled by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia); cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 235, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2448, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ([I]f the petitioner is affirmatively misled, either by the court or by the State, equitable tolling might well be appropriate.). The Supreme Court of the United States has also acknowledged that procedural instructions run the risk of being misleading. Pliler, 542 U.S. at 232, 124 S.Ct. at 2446 (majority opinion). 18 The instructions of the state habeas court for filing Spottsville's appeal were misleading. The court did not instruct Spottsville to file anything with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia; the only official mentioned in those instructions was the Clerk of the Superior Court of Tattnell County. The instructions of the state habeas court affirmatively misled Spottsville to file both a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of probable cause with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Tattnell County. 19 Warden Terry erroneously argues that Spottsville is an experienced pro se litigant who could have either avoided or discovered his error and still filed a federal petition before the limitations period expired. The problem with Warden Terry's argument is that Spottsville followed the instructions of the state court to the letter by filing his papers in the only court mentioned in the order of the state court. It is unreasonable to expect a pro se litigant to second-guess or disregard an instruction in a written order of a court. The first notice to Spottsville that he had been misled by the state habeas court came when the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed his appeal. By then, it was too late for Spottsville to cure his error. Spottsville diligently filed his federal petition fewer than two months after the dismissal of his state appeal. 20 Equitable tolling . . . is `appropriate when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence.' Wade, 379 F.3d at 1265 (citations omitted). Spottsville's untimely filing was not his fault. Because Spottsville relied on the misleading instructions of the Superior Court of Tattnell County, equity requires that Spottsville's limitations period be tolled during the pendency of his attempted appeal of the denial of his state habeas petition. With the addition of that period of equitable tolling, Spottsville's federal petition for habeas relief is timely.