Albert Holland v. Florida (560 U.S. 631)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 14, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 560 U.S. 631 · 130 S. Ct. 2549
- Decided
- June 14, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. We here decide that the timeliness provision in the federal habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d). We also consider its application in this case. In the Court of Appeals’ view, when a petitioner seeks to excuse a late filing on the basis of his attorney’s unprofessional conduct, that conduct, even if it is “negligent” or “grossly negligent,” cannot “rise to the level of egregious attorney misconduct” that would warrant equitable tolling unless the petitioner offers “proof of bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment or so forth.” 539 F. 3d 1334, 1339 (CA11 2008) (per euriam). In our view, this standard is too rigid. See Irwin v. Department of Vet erans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 96 (1990); see also Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U. S. 327, 336 (2007). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings. I AEDPA states that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” § 2244(d)(1). It also says that “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction ... review” is “pending shall not be counted” against the 1-year period. § 2244(d)(2). On…
Excerpt of a 38,461-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.