Kris Edward Helton v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

How later courts describe this case

• holding that “[t]he ‘extraordinary circumstances’ standard applied in this circuit focuses on the circumstances surrounding the late filing of the habeas petition, rather than the circumstances surrounding the underlying conviction” (citation omitted)
• holding that an attorney’s miscalculation or misinterpretation does not constitute extraordinary circumstances
• explaining that petitioner must “establish his own due diligence in ascertaining the applicable limitations period”
• stating that claims about an allegedly deficient prison law library were insufficient to establish an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling
• rejecting petitioner’s reliance upon counsel’s mistaken calculation of limitations period because petitioner did not show due diligence in ascertaining the correct period
• rejecting petitioner’s equitable tolling argument that he “was prevented from obtaining accurate information due to deficiencies in the prison library where he was being held”
• finding no equitable tolling where the petitioner “was prevented from obtaining accurate information due to deficiencies in the prison library where he was being held”
• denying equitable tolling in light of petitioner's failure to present necessary evidence