Frank Smaldone v. Daniel Senkowski, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that we “exclude from tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) the ninety-day period during which a petitioner could have but did not file a certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court from the denial of a state post-conviction petition.”
• finding an attorney error in calculating 5 time period was inadequate to create the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling
• amending certificate of 16 appealability to reach issue of timeliness, where certificate was granted only on issue of equitable 17 tolling
• habeas petitioners seeking equitable tolling are required to show they acted with “reasonable diligence” and that extraordinary circumstances beyond then-control prevented them from filing the petition
• “This Circuit, like her sisters, has found attorney error inadequate to create the extraordinary circumstances equitable tolling requires”
• “[A]ttorney error, miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to the ‘extraordinary’ circumstances required for equitable tolling.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).