Opinion ID: 2790653
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: June 2013 Deadline

Text: Under this theory, White argues that he did not receive notice that the Kansas Supreme Court had denied his petition for review until late June 2013. At that point, he sprang into action and filed his habeas application shortly thereafter. The record contains a copy of the letter that White’s lawyer wrote to him on April 28, 2011, advising him that the petition for review had been denied. In the letter, the attorney also advised White that “[t]he statute of limitations for federal filings are very short.” R. at 145. However, White says he never received the letter. He does allege that “from February 2012 to August 2012, [he made] numerous attempts . . . to contact [his attorney] but got no response returned, so during this time[] [he] spent it filing for a clemency request to the governor of Kansas . . . which [was] filed in approximately April of 2012.” Id. at 253. In June 2013, more than a year after filing his clemency request, White asked a relative to send a letter to the attorney inquiring about the status of his petition for review. See id. In response White received a letter dated June 24 that states: “Enclosed please find a copy of the letter that was sent to you in April, 2011 informing you that your petition for review by the Kansas Supreme Court had been denied. Unfortunately, this will likely put you outside of the federal time limits.” Id. at 144.3 3 The remainder of this letter is blacked out. -7- Assuming for argument that the delayed notice constitutes extraordinary circumstances, the question is whether White was diligent. “The diligence required for equitable tolling purposes is reasonable diligence.” Holland, 560 U.S. at 653 (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that White failed to “persuasively allege diligence.” R. at 312. Among other things, the court noted that White “does not explain whether he made any effort to contact the Kansas Supreme Court for information on the status of his case, does not provide a detailed explanation of his efforts to contact his counsel, and states only that in the absence of a reply from counsel, he filed a petition for clemency.” Id. We also note that White waited until June 2013 to ask a relative to contact the allegedly non-responsive attorney. The district court did not abuse its discretion to deny equitable tolling.