Opinion ID: 4469919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Executive Summary

Text: It is more difficult to muster enough votes to rehear a case en banc where, as here, the opinion is unpublished and the state, for whatever reason, moves neither for panel nor en banc rehearing. 1 This matter is still enbancworthy because of the confusing signal the panel sends to the district judges. Even if, arguendo, the members of the panel would have decided differently 1 In other words, sua sponte polls are uniformly less successful. The judges are under- standably not as likely to grant rehearing in an otherwise meritorious case if the losing party isn’t concerned enough to file for rehearing. The state’s silence here is astonishing in light of the fact that, as stated above, equitable tolling has never been conferred on a prisoner who waited so long. 3 No. 18-20127 from Judge Ellison had they been in his shoes, it is way over the top and beyond reasonable imagination to say that Judge Ellison abused the wide discretion that we are supposed to accord our district judges on this matter of purely equitable discretion. In his comprehensive six-page Memorandum Opinion and Order entered almost two years ago, Judge Ellison addressed this case with care and deliber- ation. He noted that “[t]he federal limitation period may be tolled equitably, but only when the petitioner shows that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing” (citing Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)). He enunciated the proper test in explaining that “a petitioner must show that he pursued the habeas corpus process with diligence and alacrity both before and after receiving an untimely notification” (citing Hardy, 577 F.3d at 598). In examining the 425-day delay in Umana’s filing after discretionary review was refused, Judge Ellison meticulously reviewed every one of Umana’s excuses, such as the fact that he is pro se and unfamiliar with the law and that there were intermittent lockdowns and staff shortages. In response, Judge Ellison judiciously reasoned that Umana’s conclusional excuses didn’t come close to explaining why it took 425 days and that Umana’s pro se status, without more, couldn’t take him off the hook from his lack of diligence (citing Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 2000); Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390,