Joseph Lombardo v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10904
7th Cir.2017Background
- Joseph Lombardo, convicted of racketeering, murder, and obstruction, received a life sentence; the Supreme Court denied certiorari March 25, 2013 (rehearing denied June 3, 2013).
- Lombardo filed a § 2255 motion on May 31, 2014 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the government moved to dismiss as untimely under the one‑year AEDPA limitation from the date the conviction became final.
- Lombardo’s postconviction counsel miscalculated the filing deadline (relying on a paralegal) and filed after the § 2255 deadline; Lombardo conceded untimeliness and sought equitable tolling based on counsel’s error and Holland.
- The district court dismissed the motion as untimely, finding counsel’s miscalculation did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- The panel considered (and rejected) extending Martinez/Trevino principles (which excuse procedural default for certain ineffective‑assistance claims) into an equitable‑tolling exception for AEDPA limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney miscalculation of the AEDPA § 2255 deadline justifies equitable tolling | Lombardo: counsel’s miscalculation (and reliance on a paralegal) is an extraordinary circumstance warranting tolling | Government: attorney error is a "garden‑variety" mistake attributable to the client and not extraordinary | Held: No — ordinary attorney miscalculation does not satisfy extraordinary‑circumstances for equitable tolling |
| Whether Holland allows tolling for attorney misconduct short of abandonment/egregious misconduct | Lombardo: Holland’s equitable, case‑specific approach supports tolling here | Government: Holland distinguished egregious misconduct from garden‑variety neglect; this case lacks Holland‑level facts | Held: Holland does not compel tolling here; miscalculation alone is insufficient |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino create an equitable‑tolling exception for ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims | Lombardo: Martinez logic (protecting initial review of trial‑ineffective claims) should allow tolling where postconviction counsel was ineffective or absent and claim has some merit | Government: Martinez addresses procedural default in state habeas, not AEDPA limitations; extending it would eviscerate the statute of limitations | Held: No — Martinez/Trevino do not justify creating a broad equitable‑tolling exception to AEDPA limitations |
| Whether a remand for evidentiary development on abandonment/egregious misconduct was required | Lombardo: factual development could show abandonment or egregious misconduct justifying tolling | Government: record lacks allegations or evidence of abandonment; trial court did not err in refusing remand | Held: No remand — appellant failed to raise or support abandonment/egregious misconduct in district court; speculation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (egregious attorney misconduct can, in some cases, justify equitable tolling; garden‑variety negligence does not)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (attorney miscalculation of filing deadlines is not a basis for equitable tolling)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow equitable exception to procedural‑default rules for ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims in state postconviction proceedings)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (applies Martinez in certain states where procedural dynamics make direct review impracticable)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney abandonment severs principal‑agent relationship, potentially excusing client from attorney errors)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (client generally bears the risk of attorney error for procedural default principles)
- Robinson v. United States, 416 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (same attorney‑miscalculation fact pattern; miscalculation does not warrant equitable tolling)
- Ramirez v. United States, 799 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguished; relief rested on counsel abandonment and Rule 60(b) principles rather than routine miscalculation)
- Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (lack of counsel or legal training is common among prisoners and not by itself an extraordinary circumstance)