Anastacio M. Cerrito v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 693 F. App'x 790

Petitioner Anastacio Cerrito, a Florida inmate, filed a federal habeas petition after the one-year AEDPA limitation and sought equitable tolling.
Cerrito argued the deadline should be tolled because (1) a Florida court/Clerk/DO C delayed issuing/delivering the mandate terminating his state postconviction proceeding, and (2) he lacked Spanish legal materials or translation help in the prison library.
After the state court denied his Rule 3.850 motion, Cerrito did not move for rehearing or appeal; under Fla. R. App. P. 9.340 the mandate issues within 15 days unless otherwise ordered. Cerrito waited over four months before inquiring about the mandate, though he had only 67 days left to file federal habeas.
He also alleged limited English and limited access to bilingual legal help but provided no detailed timeline or specific efforts to obtain materials/assistance.
The district court denied equitable tolling, finding Cerrito failed to exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring the mandate and failed to show his language barrier was an extraordinary, unavoidable impediment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether delayed issuance/delivery of the state-court mandate warrants equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year period	Cerrito: late mandate (or late delivery by court/mail/DOC) prevented timely federal filing	Respondent: Cerrito failed to monitor state proceedings and waited months before inquiring; delay caused by his inaction	Denied — Court found Cerrito did not act with reasonable diligence; his 4-month delay, not the mandate timing, caused untimeliness
Whether limited English / lack of Spanish legal materials or bilingual assistance warrants equitable tolling	Cerrito: language barrier and lack of Spanish materials/translation made filing impossible within the period	Respondent: Cerrito produced no details showing diligence or that the barrier was unavoidable despite efforts	Denied — Court held language difficulties were not shown to be an extraordinary, unavoidable circumstance; no evidence of specific attempts or how prison thwarted efforts

San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and burden for equitable tolling)
Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling is extraordinary and requires cause beyond control and unavoidable with diligence)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and an extraordinary circumstance)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling framework)
Drew v. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2002) (delay in receiving orders may toll if petitioner diligently pursued status)
Knight v. Schofield, 292 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (equitable tolling where prisoner promptly sought decision and relied on clerk’s assurances)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (stay-and-abeyance as remedy when mandate delay truncates federal filing period)
Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2006) (diligence requires specific actions and factual detail)
Rivers v. United States, 416 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2005) (language/education limitations addressed in tolling context)
United States v. Montano, 398 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2005) (language barriers do not automatically warrant tolling)
Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (extraordinary cause must be beyond control and unavoidable)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no federal constitutional right to counsel in postconviction collateral attack)