Chivous Robinson v. Joe Easterling, 424 F. App'x 439

Robinson was convicted by jury in Knox County, Tennessee on Oct. 9, 2000, of second-degree murder and solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 32 years.
Direct appeal to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed on Feb. 28, 2003; Tennessee Supreme Court declined further review on July 7, 2003, finalizing the state judgment on Oct. 5, 2003.
Petitioner filed state post-conviction relief on Oct. 16, 2003, which was denied and affirmed on May 19, 2006; Tennessee Supreme Court again declined jurisdiction on Oct. 2, 2006.
During state post-conviction proceedings, counsel failed to provide timely case status updates and did not inform Robinson of key decisions until Oct. 9, 2007; Robinson learned of these proceedings only after reviewing decisions copies.
Robinson filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Oct. 23, 2007, 32 days after the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations expired.
District court denied equitable tolling on Mar. 16, 2009; Sixth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on Jan. 28, 2010, on the tolling issue and appointed counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling applies for attorney missteps	Robinson asserts attorney misconduct and delayed updates were extraordinary circumstances.	State argues diligence and unavoidable delay do not warrant tolling; Robinson could have acted sooner.	No equitable tolling; diligence was lacking and delays were avoidable.
Whether Robinson exercised reasonable diligence	Robinson relied on counsel for updates and had limited access to legal resources due to incarceration.	Robinson waited eighteen months after March 29, 2006, before further inquiries; not reasonably diligent.	Not reasonably diligent; waiting eighteen months forecloses tolling.
Whether AEDPA tolling was properly denied as a matter of law	Equitable tolling should apply to avoid manifest injustice given attorney failures.	Even with extraordinary circumstances, diligence requirement blocks tolling.	District court did not err; district ruling affirmed.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (U.S. 2006) (AEDPA time limits are non-jurisdictional; tolled only upon tolling showings)
Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (two-part test for equitable tolling; diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 2010) (two-part standard for equitably tolling)
Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (diligence and extraordinary circumstances required for tolling)
Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2000) (delay in learning of status can be extraordinary, but must be unavoidable)
Granger v. Hurt, 90 F. App’x 97 (6th Cir. 2004) (delays caused by attorney assurances can be excused only to a point)
Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2002) (delay due to court deliberations may be reasonable under tolling analysis)
Jenkins v. Greene, 630 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence notwithstanding extraordinary circumstances)
Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1984) (diligence requirement limits tolling relief)
LaCava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005) (reasonable diligence governs tolling determinations)
Longazel v. Fort Dearborn Life Ins. Co., 363 F. App’x 365 (6th Cir. 2010) (three-year inaction not tolled; inquiry delay insufficient)