999 F.3d 474
7th Cir.2021Background:
- Ademiju, a Nigerian national, pled guilty to one count of healthcare fraud and stipulated to $1.5 million in losses; plea and plea colloquy warned that immigration consequences were possible.
- At sentencing the defense argued an imprisonment term under one year might permit immigration relief; the court (with government non‑opposition) sentenced Ademiju to 11 months on April 6, 2017; he did not appeal and began his sentence August 1, 2017.
- After release he was transferred to ICE custody; an immigration attorney advised in August 2018 that the conviction constituted an aggravated felony making him mandatorily deportable.
- Ademiju filed a Section 2255 motion on August 8, 2018 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for erroneous immigration advice; the government moved to dismiss as untimely because the one‑year §2255 limitation expired in April 2018.
- Ademiju sought equitable tolling based on (1) erroneous pre‑ and at‑sentencing immigration advice, (2) post‑sentencing advice that he could not challenge the judgment, and (3) limited law‑library access (materials mainly in Spanish). The district court denied tolling and dismissed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Ademiju's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of §2255 filing / equitable tolling | His §2255 was late but tolling applies because extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing | The motion is untimely and no extraordinary circumstance justifies tolling | Denied equitable tolling; §2255 untimely |
| Erroneous immigration advice at plea/sentencing | Counsel’s wrong advice about immigration consequences prevented timely awareness/action | Attorney negligence alone is not an extraordinary circumstance | Counsel’s incorrect advice not enough for tolling |
| Post‑sentencing advice that challenge was impossible | Counsel told him the judgment was final, preventing timely filing | Misleading or negligent advice does not equal abandonment or extraordinary circumstance | Post‑sentence counsel conduct did not justify tolling |
| Prison law‑library limitations | Library materials were mostly Spanish, impeding research and filing | Limited access to library does not warrant equitable tolling | Library limitations insufficient for tolling; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (sets the two‑part equitable‑tolling standard: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Carpenter v. Douma, 840 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling is an extraordinary, rarely granted remedy)
- Lee v. Cook County, 635 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2011) (attorney ineptitude generally does not warrant equitable tolling)
- Schmid v. McCauley, 825 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing attorney abandonment from ordinary negligence)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney abandonment can in some cases justify equitable relief)
- Tucker v. Kingston, 538 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2008) (limited prison law‑library access is not a basis for equitable tolling)
- Jones v. Hulick, 449 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2006) (same: library access claims do not ordinarily support tolling)
- Spiller v. United States, 855 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2017) (no evidentiary hearing required when record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief)