Tillman v. Warden of Leath Correctional Institution, 6:15-cv-03114

Tillman pled guilty in 2007 to assault and battery with intent to kill, possession of a firearm during a violent crime, and first-degree burglary; she admitted planning the attack and was sentenced to consecutive terms (20 years + 5 + 5).
Direct appeal was dismissed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in February 2010; her PCR application was filed November 23, 2010, denied after an evidentiary hearing, and certiorari was denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court in August 2014.
Tillman filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, received by the district court in August 2015 (she signed it July 30, 2015), asserting involuntary plea, illegal sentencing (consecutive vs. concurrent), and ineffective assistance for failing to investigate mental-health defenses.
Respondent moved for summary judgment arguing the petition is time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations; the magistrate judge ordered briefing and Tillman responded.
The magistrate found Tillman’s convictions became final February 23, 2010; tolled time during PCR (until remittitur filed Sept. 9, 2014); after tolling, Tillman filed beyond the one-year limit (total untolled days = 595), exceeding the deadline by 230 days.
The magistrate rejected equitable tolling, noting Tillman’s asserted ignorance of the law and a PCR counsel letter advising about deadlines did not show extraordinary circumstances; recommended dismissal as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under AEDPA §2244(d)	Petition timely filed within one year of PCR denial (assumed Aug 21, 2014)	Petition filed after AEDPA one-year expired; untolled time before and after PCR exceeded one year	Petition untimely; magistrate calculated 595 days untolled, recommending dismissal
Statutory tolling during state PCR	State PCR tolled limitations while pending	Same; respondent accepts tolling only while PCR pending	Tolling applied from PCR filing to remittitur (Nov 23, 2010–Sept 9, 2014) for calculation
Equitable tolling of AEDPA deadline	Tillman relied on PCR appellate counsel’s letter and claimed confusion/illiteracy to excuse delay	Counsel’s letter and plaintiff’s ignorance do not constitute extraordinary circumstances	Equitable tolling denied; lack of extraordinary external impediment
Summary judgment standard	Opposed summary judgment citing procedural/merit arguments	Seeks summary judgment on timeliness; merits not reached if untimely	Summary judgment recommended for respondent on timeliness grounds

Anders v. California, 388 U.S. 924 (procedural standard for appellate counsel raising frivolous issues)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applies to petitions filed after its effective date)
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (properly filed state collateral applications toll AEDPA statute)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling available under AEDPA for extraordinary circumstances)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (requirements for equitable tolling and interaction of state collateral filings with AEDPA)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (exhaustion and state-court review requirements)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuineness standards for summary judgment)
Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (en banc 4th Cir.; equitable tolling elements)
Sosa v. United States, 364 F.3d 507 (ignorance of law and lack of counsel do not justify equitable tolling)