Ernest Cadet v. State of Florida Department of Corrections
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1879
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cadet was convicted in 2000 in Florida and his judgment became final 90 days later, triggering a one-year AEDPA habeas deadline.
- Cadet filed a pro se state habeas petition in 2003 and later sought Florida post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, delaying federal filing.
- The Florida appellate mandate in 2006 restarted the federal deadline, giving Cadet five days to file, but his attorney miscalculated and filed almost a year late.
- Goodman, Cadet’s attorney, repeatedly assured Cadet that there was ample time to file, based on a misreading of § 2244(d)(1).
- Cadet’s § 2254 petition was filed on August 23, 2007, about a year after the deadline, and was dismissed as untimely in district court.
- The Eleventh Circuit addressed whether attorney error could be an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, adopting Maples/Holland framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney error can be an extraordinary tolling circumstance | Cadet argues Maples/Holland allow abandonment or egregious error to excuse lateness. | State argues only abandonment (not mere error) qualifies; no abandonment here. | Attorney error alone is insufficient; abandonment or equivalent extraordinary circumstance required. |
| Whether Goodman abandoned Cadet under agency law | Cadet contends Goodman’s miscalculation and assurances severed the attorney-client relation. | State contends Goodman remained Cadet’s counsel and did not abandon him. | Goodman did not abandon Cadet; relationship remained intact; no abandonment tolling. |
| What standard applies after Maples/Holland for equitable tolling | Cadet relies on abandonment standard as the key to extraordinary circumstances. | State argues abandonment is required; gross negligence cannot satisfy tolling without abandonment. | Abandonment is the appropriate standard; gross negligence alone does not warrant tolling. |
| Result of applying the above standards to Cadet’s petition | If abandonment or extraordinary circumstances were shown, final tolling could salvage the petition. | No abandonment or extraordinary circumstance shown; petition time-barred. | Cadet’s petition remains untimely; district court's dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (limits on a rigid rule; allows case-specific extraordinary circumstances)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment of counsel can excuse a default; distinguishes abandonment from negligence)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 827 (2007) (attorney miscalculation generally not 'cause' for tolling)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (attorney ignorance or inadvertence not 'cause' for default)
- Downs v. McNeil, 520 F.3d 1311 (2008) (reasonable diligence in pursuing rights, not maximum diligence)
- Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F.3d 597 (1999) (attorney mistake not tolling extraordinary circumstance)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (2000) (attorney misinterpretation not tolling)