Izzi v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that appointing counsel or holding a hearing is unnecessary where the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief
• explaining that reasonable diligence requires the petitioner to prove “he diligently tried to protect his rights over time, not just at some points near the end of the limitations period”
• petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he did not explain how schizophrenia or lockdowns prevented him from filing his petition on time
• “Reasonable diligence requires that [the petitioner must] prove he diligently tried to protect his rights over time . . . .”
• “[C]ommon parts of prison life” are also not considered “extraordinary” as required to toll the limitations period
• “[C]ommon parts of prison life” are also not considered “extraordinary” as required to toll the limitations period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).