Quilling claims that he has been confused about state court actions in issuing premature mandates and the alleged failure of the state court to issue a mandate in a postconviction appeal. (Doc. 13 at 15) His pro se status does not, however, excuse his failure to file a timely petition. See Spears v. Warden, 605 Fed. Appx. 900, 904 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) ("We have stated that pro se litigants, like all others, are deemed to know of the one-year statute of limitations . . . . And we have not accepted a lack of a legal education as an excuse for a failure to file in a timely fashion.") (citations and quotation marks omitted) cert. denied sub nom. Spears v. Tatum, 136 S. Ct. 300, 193 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2015). Quilling states that the state court record is a "testament" to him that he has used due diligence in exercising available procedures. (Doc. 11 at 11) He delayed, however, in filing applications which would toll his limitations period and in the absence of such, a federal petition before his limitations period expired.

However, "allegations of mental incapacity are insufficient to show a causal connection to his untimely filing." Spears v. Warden, 605 F. App'x 900, 904 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Spears v. Tatum, 136 S. Ct. 300 (2015). The factual record is sufficiently developed to conclude that: as of June 2010 at the latest (when his first state habeas action was denied on the merits) Allen was not so mentally impaired that his alleged mental illness "in fact" prevented him from pursuing habeas relief. His abandoned attempt to seek federal habeas relief here in 2014 (see Allen v. Tatum, No. CV414-169) and unsuccessful pursuit of successive state habeas relief in 2015 (see doc. 1 at 4, Tatnall County habeas petition denied as untimely and successive) further demonstrate petitioner's ability to seek habeas relief over the years, regardless of his alleged mental impairment.