William Greg Thomas v. Attorney General, State of Florida
795 F.3d 1286
11th Cir.2015Background
- William Greg Thomas was convicted and sentenced to death in Florida for orchestrating his wife’s murder; his conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and state postconviction relief failed.
- Thomas sought federal habeas relief; the one-year AEDPA limitations period expired June 18, 2003. Counsel Mary Catherine Bonner was appointed in April 2003 but filed the §2254 petition on March 22, 2004 — after the deadline.
- The district court initially ruled the petition untimely and denied equitable tolling, later (after hearings) concluded Bonner’s misconduct (bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment) warranted equitable tolling, but denied relief on the merits.
- The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated and remanded solely for further fact-finding about equitable tolling, directing the district court to apply intervening Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit decisions (Holland II, Maples, Cadet).
- The panel emphasized the changed framework: attorney negligence—even gross negligence—does not qualify for tolling; abandonment of the attorney-client relationship or other serious attorney misconduct may.
- The court instructed the district court to make detailed factual findings on why Bonner filed late (mistake, strategic choice, mental impairment, or deliberate test case), whether Thomas exercised due diligence, and whether Bonner’s conduct amounted to abandonment or other extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s 1-year limit | Thomas: Bonner’s egregious misconduct (bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment) and his diligence excuse the late filing | State: Petition is time-barred; attorney negligence cannot justify equitable tolling | Remanded: District court must make detailed factual findings and apply Holland II/Maples/Cadet to decide if abandonment or other extraordinary misconduct occurred |
| Whether attorney misconduct amounted to abandonment (making counsel’s acts not attributable to client) | Thomas: Bonner’s representations, failures, and alleged impairment effectively abandoned him | State: Even gross negligence does not equal abandonment; client remains bound by counsel’s errors | Court: Apply Holland II/Maples/Cadet standard on remand to determine abandonment under agency principles |
| Whether bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, or mental impairment independently suffice for tolling | Thomas: These Holland I factors support tolling even if not full abandonment | State: Such allegations require specific proof; may be strategic or negligent conduct | Court: These factors remain potentially relevant; district court must find specific facts and assess if they constitute extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether Thomas acted with due diligence in pursuing his rights | Thomas: He actively participated, sent a signed petition, relied on counsel’s statements | State: Thomas did not take independent steps to ensure timely filing | Court: District court must make specific findings about Thomas’s actions and diligence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling available for extraordinary attorney misconduct; remanded for factual inquiry)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (attorney abandonment without notice can excuse procedural defaults under agency principles)
- Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 742 F.3d 473 (11th Cir.) (attorney negligence, however gross, does not qualify for equitable tolling; abandonment required)
- Holland v. Florida, 539 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008) (identifies bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment as factors potentially supporting tolling)
- Downs v. McNeil, 520 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling is rare; overt attorney deception can support tolling)