Kris Edward Helton v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

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 | 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 | stating that claims about an allegedly deficient prison law library were insufficient to establish an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling | 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 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 | denying equitable tolling in light of petitioner’s failure to present necessary evidence | denying equitable tolling to inmate whose counsel misinformed him about AEDPA time limit and whose prison library allegedly lacked copies of relevant law in light of petitioner's failure to state any "independent efforts" that he made to ascertain deadline | denying equitable tolling to inmate whose counsel misinformed him about AEDPA time limit and whose prison library allegedly lacked copies of relevant law in light of petitioner’s failure to state any “independent efforts” that he made to ascertain deadline | explaining petitioner must “establish his own due diligence in ascertaining the applicable limitations period” | “Helton fails to state any independent efforts he made to determine whether the relevant limitations period began to run.” | 'Equitable tolling can be applied ... when "extraordinary circumstances" have worked to prevent an otherwise diligent petitioner from timely filing his petition.' | “Helton fails to state any independent efforts he made to determine whether the relevant limitations period began to run.” | “Helton fails to state any independent efforts he made to determine whether the relevant limitations period began to run.” | movant was not entitled to equitable tolling when his motion was □ untimely due to erroneous advice by counsel | “[A]n attorney’s miscalculation of the limitations period or mistake is not a basis for equitable tolling[.] (quoting Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000)) | “The ‘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.” | “The ‘extraordinary circumstances’ standard 21 applied in this circuit focuses on the circumstances surrounding the late filing of the habeas 22 petition, rather than the circumstances surrounding the underlying conviction.” | “The ‘extraordinary circumstances’ standard applied in this 13 || circuit focuses on the circumstances surrounding the late filing of t