## Facts

- Albert Holland, a Florida death-row prisoner, pursued federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state direct review and postconviction proceedings ended.
- AEDPA imposes a one-year limitations period for state prisoners’ federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
- Holland’s federal habeas petition, filed pro se, was approximately five weeks late.
- Holland’s court-appointed attorney allegedly failed to file a timely federal petition despite repeated letters stressing the deadline and urging timely filing.
- Counsel allegedly failed to determine the correct filing deadline, failed to timely inform Holland that the Florida Supreme Court had decided his case, and failed to communicate with Holland for extended periods.
- Holland repeatedly sought to have counsel removed through state courts and the Florida Bar.
- After learning the relevant state proceedings had concluded and the AEDPA period had run, Holland promptly filed his own petition and sought equitable tolling based on counsel’s misconduct and his own efforts.

## Issues

1. Whether AEDPA’s one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling.
2. If equitable tolling is available, whether serious attorney misconduct short of bad faith or dishonesty can qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” when the petitioner has pursued his rights diligently.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that § 2244(d)’s one-year limitations period is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.
- The Court adopted a two-part test: equitable tolling requires (1) diligent pursuit of rights and (2) an extraordinary circumstance that stood in the petitioner’s way and prevented timely filing.
- The Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s categorical rule that attorney misconduct, even if grossly negligent, cannot warrant tolling absent bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment, or similar factors.
- The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for application of the correct equitable tolling standard to Holland’s facts.

## Legal Principles

- Nonjurisdictional federal limitations periods carry a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
- Equitable tolling under AEDPA is available only when the petitioner shows both diligence and causation: the extraordinary circumstance must have prevented timely filing.
- Equitable tolling is case-specific and applied sparingly, but it cannot be limited by rigid categorical exclusions inconsistent with equitable doctrine.
- Serious attorney misconduct may constitute an extraordinary circumstance where it is sufficiently egregious and connected to the late filing; mere garden-variety neglect does not automatically satisfy the standard.
- A petitioner’s diligence is evaluated in light of the actions taken to pursue relief and to monitor counsel’s performance, including efforts to obtain case information and to ensure timely filing.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized equitable tolling for AEDPA’s one-year habeas deadline and required lower courts to apply a fact-specific two-part test focused on the petitioner’s diligence and whether extraordinary circumstances—potentially including severe attorney misconduct—actually prevented a timely federal filing.


Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010)