Goodman v. McCabe, 1:13-cv-00594

Petitioner Calvin Goodman, a South Carolina inmate, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief.
Respondent moved for summary judgment arguing the petition is untimely under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2).
Goodman was convicted after a 2006 jury trial of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor and pled guilty to four Lewd Act on a Minor counts, receiving 50 years total consecutive sentences.
He did not file a direct appeal; his conviction became final ten days after sentencing, triggering the AEDPA clock.
Goodman pursued state post-conviction relief (PCR) in 2006-2008, which was denied; he appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which denied certiorari in 2010.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute and grant summary judgment on the merits due to time-bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA	Goodman argues timeliness should be measured from finality and tolling.	McCabe contends the petition was filed after the AEDPA period expired and not tolled properly.	Petition untimely; time-bar not tolled sufficiently.
Whether equitable tolling applies	Goodman asserts extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and diligent pursuit.	McCabe contends Goodman failed to demonstrate diligence and no extraordinary circumstance.	No entitlement to equitable tolling.
Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute	Goodman did not respond due to neglect, not abandonment.	McCabe argues dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted.	Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Whether the petition is procedurally barred from merits review	Goodman may contend relief on the merits if timely.	McCabe maintains merits review is barred due to time bar.	Merits review barred; statute of limitations forecloses.

Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (AEDPA equitable tolling applies only in exceptional circumstances)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (two-pronged test for equitable tolling)
Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2003) (diligence and extraordinary circumstances required for tolling)
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (definition of 'properly filed' for tolling purposes)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (clarified finality for state-court review in AEDPA context)
Crawley v. Catoe, 257 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2001) (tolling ends after final denial or expiration of review; remittitur timing not tolled)
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) (procedural timeliness analysis for habeas petitions)
Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1995) (procedural bar when merits are precluded by time bar)
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978) (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute)