Manuel Cooper v. Marshall Fisher, Commissioner, 676 F. App'x 355

Manuel Cooper, a Mississippi prisoner convicted of false pretenses and sentenced to life as a habitual offender in 2009, filed a § 2254 petition that the district court dismissed as untimely under the one‑year limitation (deadline Nov. 23, 2012).
Cooper contends his attorney, John R. McNeal, Jr., was paid a full retainer (allegedly $8,000) but misled him into believing a state post‑conviction and/or federal habeas petition had been filed, causing the late filing.
Cooper submitted sworn statements (under § 1746) and affidavits from two sisters corroborating payment, plus correspondence with McNeal, the federal clerk, and the state bar about the lawyer’s conduct.
The district court relied on a March 15, 2012 letter from McNeal requesting additional payment and found no evidence of intentional deception; it denied equitable tolling and dismissed Cooper’s petition as time‑barred.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit compared the facts to Holland and Wynn, found Cooper’s sworn evidence and timeline sufficient to raise a factual dispute about (1) whether McNeal was paid in full, (2) whether McNeal misrepresented filing, and (3) whether Cooper reasonably relied—concluding the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve those factual issues relevant to equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling applies to Cooper’s untimely § 2254 petition	Cooper: attorney was paid in full, attorney falsely represented filings, and Cooper diligently pursued rights, so extraordinary circumstances and diligence warrant tolling	State: record shows attorney sought additional payment in March 2012; no evidence of intentional deception; statute of limitations not tolled	Vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about payment, misrepresentations, and reasonable reliance
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying tolling without a hearing	Cooper: factual disputes (sworn statements, affidavits, correspondence) require a hearing	State: relied on the March 15 letter and absence of direct proof of deception to deny tolling	Court: abuse of discretion; fact‑intensive inquiry requires resolution at evidentiary hearing

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling applies in rare and exceptional circumstances)
Palacios v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (equitable‑tolling review is fact‑intensive; standard of review depends on basis for district court decision)
United States v. Wynn, 292 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2002) (attorney misrepresentations about filing can warrant equitable tolling; remand for hearing)
Vineyard v. Dretke, [citation="125 F. App'x 551"] (5th Cir. 2005) (attorney misrepresentations may justify tolling; factual development required)