China v. U.S.

1 Citing case

  1. Poteat v. Attorney Gen. of N.J.

    Civ. No. 16-2351 (RBK) (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2017)

    This purported failure to inform petitioner about the applicable one-year statute of limitations to bring a ยง 2254 motion does not rise to the level to warrant equitable tolling. See Batts v. Giorla, No. 11-5947, 2012 WL 3046334, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2012) (failure of state public defender to inform petitioner of federal habeas statute of limitations does not warrant equitable tolling), report and recommendation adopted by, 2012 WL 3046327 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2012); China v. United States, No. 07-2260, 2008 WL 2152056, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2008) ("An attorney's failure to inform an incarcerated client about the statute of limitations governing his collateral attack, as Petitioner asserts without demonstrating that he so much as inquired about this Motion with his attorney at any time in or outside of the limitations period, by no means illustrates an extraordinary circumstance beyond Petitioner's control that stood in the way of his compliance with AEDPA's limitations period."); Hartmann v. Carroll, No. 03-796, 2004 WL 2713104, at *5 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2004) (failure to inform petitioner about federal habeas statute of limitations does not warrant equitable tolling). Furthermore, petitioner's own lack of legal knowledge is insufficient to warrant equitable tolling. See Ross, 712 F.3d at 799-800 (noting in habeas context that fact that petitioner is proceeding pro se and his lack of legal knowledge or training does not alone justify equitable tolling).