Patricia Plummer v. Millicent Warren, 463 F. App'x 501

Plummer, a Michigan prisoner, filed pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition; district court dismissed as untimely and denied equitable tolling.
Convicted in 2001 of two counts felony murder, one count armed robbery, and one count of felony-firearm; sentenced to life without parole for felony murder and armed robbery and 2 years for firearm.
Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal (2003-2004).
Filed habeas petition in 2005; district court dismissed without prejudice with guidance that tolling could occur during state collateral review; Plummer sought state post-conviction relief, which concluded in 2006-2007 with exhausted state remedies.
Filed second federal habeas petition in 2007, well past the AEDPA one-year limit; district court denied in 2010 applying Holland’s equitable tolling standard; this appeal followed.
Court affirms district court’s dismissal as untimely, after applying Holland two-prong test and finding no entitlement to equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plummer is entitled to equitable tolling under Holland	Plummer argues physical disabilities constitute extraordinary circumstances.	Respondent contends disabilities do not show an extraordinary impediment; delay due to non-attenuated factors.	No; no extraordinary circumstances shown to warrant tolling.
Whether notice/opportunity to be heard on limitations issue was required	Plummer alleges lack of notice about tolling fate of petition.	Respondent raised statute of limitations defense in response; no additional notice required.	No due process violation; defense was adequately raised and considered.
Whether the petition was timely under AEDPA after tolling considerations	Petition timely if tolling applied during state collateral review.	No tolling due to lack of extraordinary circumstances and timing.	AEDPA deadline not tolled sufficiently; petition untimely.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (two-prong equitable tolling standard: diligent pursuit and extraordinary obstacle)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (due process for sua sponte dismissal requires fair notice and opportunity to respond)
Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (five-factor equitable tolling test (overruled))
Holland v. Hall, 662 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2011) (adopts Holland two-prong standard in circuit)
Griffin v. Rogers, 399 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (ignorance of law not enough for tolling)
Smith v. Beightler, 49 F. App’x 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (ignorance and reliance on others not tolling)
Price v. Lewis, 119 F. App’x 725 (6th Cir. 2005) (illness tolls only if it prevents pursuing rights)
McClendon v. Sherman, 329 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden on petitioner to show tolling)
Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 2010) (tolling analysis when pursuing rights)