Mark F. Taylor v. Billie J. Michael
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15572
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mark F. Taylor was convicted in Illinois state court (Jan. 7, 2002) on multiple counts of sexual offenses against minors; four counts were later vacated and four affirmed, producing an 11-year sentence.
- Taylor pursued direct appeal and state post-conviction relief; Illinois Supreme Court denied his PLA on May 28, 2009. He filed a state post-conviction petition in 2005 alleging trial counsel Johnson labored under a conflict of interest; that petition was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal.
- Taylor retained outside counsel through an organization (ACDG). He alleges poor communication and late notice about appellate developments; he received incorrect advice about AEDPA tolling tied to certiorari after post-conviction review.
- ACDG ceased representation in January 2010; Taylor then prepared a pro se federal habeas petition but filed it on August 17, 2010. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under AEDPA and denied equitable tolling.
- On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Taylor argued equitable tolling based on counsel misconduct/delays and claimed diligence in pursuing relief; the Seventh Circuit granted a COA on the merits but required briefing on timeliness and dismissed the petition as untimely.
- The court assumed, favorably to Taylor, the latest possible accrual date but still found the petition untimely and held Taylor failed to meet the Holland equitable-tolling standards (diligence + extraordinary circumstance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor's federal habeas petition was timely under AEDPA | Taylor argued his claims accrued as late as May 28, 2009 (Fitts conviction / PLA denial) and that his filing (Aug. 17, 2010) was within or equitably tolled past the one-year deadline | The Warden argued AEDPA's one-year limit expired before Taylor filed and no statutory tolling rescued the late filing | Court held even using the most generous accrual date, Taylor's petition was untimely under AEDPA |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to excuse tardiness | Taylor contended ACDG's delays, poor communication, and incorrect advice prevented timely filing and that he acted diligently once ACDG withdrew | Warden argued Taylor had months after ACDG stopped representing him to file, he miscalculated the deadline, and attorney or petitioner miscalculation is not an extraordinary circumstance | Court held Taylor failed both Holland prongs: he lacked reasonable diligence (months elapsed with legal miscalculation) and the circumstances were not extraordinary enough to warrant tolling |
| Whether ambiguity about multi-claim accrual requires evaluating claims claim-by-claim | Taylor suggested some claims accrued later, which might save parts of the petition | Warden relied on standard AEDPA accrual principles and urged dismissal | Court declined to resolve the circuit split on multi-claim accrual but assumed the most favorable approach for Taylor and still found the petition untimely |
| Whether client's unfamiliarity with law or attorney miscalculation justifies tolling | Taylor argued misunderstanding counsel's advice and his legal ignorance justified tolling | Warden argued lack of legal knowledge and attorney miscalculation do not justify tolling | Court held such misunderstandings and miscalculations are insufficient for equitable tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (tolling during time to petition for certiorari applies to direct review, not collateral post-conviction)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (attorney miscalculation does not justify equitable tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and an extraordinary circumstance; attorney misconduct can support tolling when sufficiently serious)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (AEDPA tolling rules and burden on petitioner to show entitlement to tolling)
- Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2012) (petitioner bears burden to prove equitable tolling)
- Griffith v. Rednour, 614 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s negligence or miscalculation of deadline is not an extraordinary circumstance)
- Tucker v. Kingston, 538 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2008) (lack of legal familiarity does not justify equitable tolling)
- Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (denial of access to legal resources early in limitations period does not necessarily prevent timely filing)