Dillon v. Conway
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8492
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Dillon was convicted in New York Supreme Court (Cnty of NY) for multiple offenses after a 2004 jury trial, receiving an indeterminate sentence of 30 years to life.
- He appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division, which affirmed on June 6, 2006; the New York Court of Appeals denied leave on August 31, 2006.
- Dillon’s federal habeas petition became timely when it was filed by November 29, 2007, unless tolling applied under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1)(A).
- Langone was retained in August 2007 to handle post-conviction habeas proceedings and requested to file before the deadline, but he did not begin work until mid-October 2007.
- Langone filed the petition on November 30, 2007, along with memorandum; the district court later dismissed the petition as untimely under AEDPA.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed; the Second Circuit held that equitable tolling applied by one day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling was warranted under AEDPA for one day | Dillon’s efforts and attorney misconduct created extraordinary circumstances | AEDPA tolling requires extraordinary circumstances; miscalculation alone insufficient | Yes—one day of equitable tolling applied due to attorney misrepresentation and sustained efforts |
| Whether Langone’s conduct constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying tolling | Langone deceived Dillon by promising timely filing | Attorney error generally not extraordinary; should not toll | Yes—conduct was extraordinary, favoring tolling |
| Whether the district court properly applied Holland v. Florida standard for tolling | Court should apply Holland’s two-part test | Standard satisfied or not based on record; potentially denied | Court’s analysis proper; tolling warranted under circumstances |
| Whether the court should remand for further proceedings consistent with equitable tolling | Remand appropriate to implement tolling | Remand unnecessary if tolling resolved | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (diligence required for tolling; extraordinary circumstances must link to filing delay)
- Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003) (attorney misconduct can be extraordinary, justifying tolling)
- Geraci v. Senkowski, 211 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 2000) (attorney misinterpretation of deadlines not always tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (AEDPA tolling possible if diligence plus extraordinary circumstance shown)
- Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (extraordinary circumstances evaluated by severity of obstacle to filing)