Robertson v. Simpson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23410
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- AEDPA 1-year filing limit applies to habeas petitions; tolling available for properly filed collateral review.
- Limitations period began December 25, 2002 after direct review concluded with Kentucky Supreme Court denial and no certiorari to US Supreme Court.
- Robertson filed a tolling-triggering Rule 11.42 motion approximately one month after the deadline, which tolled the period.
- Robertson later retained attorney Scacchetti; Scacchetti used cocaine during part of the tolling period.
- Disciplinary proceedings show Scacchetti's cocaine use and alleged misadvice; district court considered Lawrence v. Florida but remanded for further factual development on extraordinary circumstances.
- Court remands to determine whether Scacchetti’s cocaine use and misadvice constitute sufficient extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling, with Robertson required to show diligent pursuit of rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney cocaine use and misadvice can warrant tolling | Robertson argues extraordinary circumstances due to cocaine use and misadvice | Respondent argues need for strict adherence to Lawrence and limited tolling | Remanded for factual determination on extraordinary circumstances (and diligence) |
| Whether Holland governs the tolling standard in this case | Holland supports tolling where attorney misconduct constitutes extraordinary circumstances | Lawrence controls and requires showing of extraordinary circumstances | Remanded to assess whether applicable Holland framework supports tolling based on record facts |
| Whether district court abused discretion by applying existing law to facts | Discretionary analysis should consider cocaine-use context | Lawrence dictates outcome unless facts show extraordinary tolling | Remand for factual findings; no final ruling on tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (direct review includes Supreme Court review for §2244(d)(1)(A) timing)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling may apply for attorney misconduct; framework for extraordinary circumstances)
- Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2000) (limits equitable tolling and requires careful consideration of circumstances)
- Cantrell v. Knoxville Community Development Corp., 60 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995) (attorney incompetence can warrant tolling in some contexts)
- Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2002) (two-part burden: diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstance)
- Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for equitable tolling rulings)