Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13593
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02019-JDW-MAP
JEFFREY MARTIN RYDER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 6, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 2 of 8
Appellant Jeffrey Ryder, a Florida state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from a
prior judgment that dismissed, as untimely filed, his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus petition. After denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the district court granted
Ryder a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the question whether he was
entitled to equitable tolling of the applicable statute of limitations with respect to
his habeas petition. On appeal, Ryder argues that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, as the alleged abandonment by his
prior attorney constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable
tolling.
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.
Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). When reviewing for an
abuse of discretion, we affirm unless the district court applied an incorrect legal
standard or made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. See Mincey v. Head,
206 F.3d 1106, 1137 n.69 (11th Cir. 2000). An appeal of a ruling on a Rule 60(b)
motion is narrow in scope, addressing only the propriety of the denial or grant of
relief rather than issues regarding the underlying judgment. Am. Bankers Ins. Co.
of Fla. v. Nw. Nat. Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). “Because of
this limitation, the law is clear that Rule 60(b) may not be used to challenge
mistakes of law which could have been raised on direct appeal.” Id.
2
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 3 of 8
Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a civil judgment based
on a number of specified reasons, including excusable neglect, newly discovered
evidence, or misconduct. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Under Rule 60(b)(6), the
catchall provision of Rule 60(b), a party may also seek relief based on “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Id. To qualify for relief under this catchall provision,
the moving party must “demonstrate that the circumstances are sufficiently
extraordinary to warrant relief. Even then, whether to grant the requested relief is
a matter for the district court’s sound discretion.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337,
1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). To
reverse the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, it is not enough that a grant of the
motion might have been permissible or warranted. Id. Rather, the appellant must
demonstrate that the district court was required to grant relief. Id.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposes a
one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition that runs from
several dates, including the date on which the judgment became final. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A). The statute of limitations, however, can be equitably tolled in
certain circumstances. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560,
177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (2010). Equitable tolling requires that the movant show the
circumstances were “both beyond his control and unavoidable even with
diligence.” Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal
3
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 4 of 8
quotation marks omitted). This equitable remedy is “typically applied sparingly.”
Id. Mere attorney negligence will not justify a grant of equitable tolling. Holland,
560 U.S. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2564; see also Helton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 259
F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that an attorney’s misinforming the
petitioner as to the deadline for filing his habeas petition does not constitute
extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling). Further, the Supreme
Court has rejected the contention that counsel’s mistake in miscalculating the
limitations period entitles the petitioner to equitable tolling. Lawrence v. Florida,
549 U.S. 327, 336-37, 127 S. Ct. 1079, 1085, 166 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2007).
Specifically, the Court has held that “[a]ttorney miscalculation is simply not
sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the postconviction context
where prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel.” Id.
In Holland, the Supreme Court, while reiterating that mere attorney
negligence does not warrant equitable tolling, nevertheless held that an attorney’s
serious misconduct may warrant such tolling. Holland, 560 U.S. at __, 130 S. Ct.
at 2564-65. The defendant in the case filed a pro se federal habeas petition after
the filing deadline had already passed, but he contended that the statute of
limitations should have been equitably tolled. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2554-55. In
support, he alleged that, during the two years while his state habeas petition was
pending before the Florida Supreme Court, his attorney communicated with him
4
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 5 of 8
only three times, and each time only by letter. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2555.
During this time, Holland’s attorney never met with him or updated him on the
status of his case. Id. After the attorney argued Holland’s appeal before the state
Supreme Court, Holland wrote him multiple letters regarding the importance of
filing his federal habeas petition timely. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2556. Despite
Holland’s attempts to communicate, his attorney ultimately missed the filing
deadline for his federal habeas petition. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2556-57. Once
Holland learned—in the prison library, not from his attorney—that the Florida
Supreme Court had already decided his case and the federal filing deadline had
passed, he immediately filed his own pro se federal habeas petition. Id. at __, 130
S. Ct. at 2557.
At the outset, the Supreme Court stated that Holland was only entitled to
equitable tolling if he showed that “some extraordinary circumstance” prevented
the timely filing of his habeas petition. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2562 (internal
quotation marks omitted). While the Court reiterated that “a garden variety claim
of excusable neglect, such as a simple miscalculation that leads a lawyer to miss a
filing deadline, does not warrant equitable tolling,” it concluded that Holland had
not presented such a “garden variety claim.” Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2564 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Rather, the facts of Holland’s case presented “far more
serious instances of attorney misconduct.” Id. The Court found that, while the
5
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 6 of 8
attorney’s failure to timely file Holland’s federal habeas petition and his apparent
unawareness of the filing deadline date suggested simple negligence, that did not
mark the end of the attorney’s misconduct. Id. Rather, the Court found that the
attorney’s failure to timely file despite Holland’s many letters emphasizing the
importance of doing so, his apparent lack of research regarding the correct filing
date, his failure to inform Holland that the Florida Supreme Court had decided his
case, and his cumulative failure to communicate with Holland over a period of
years amounted to more than simple negligence. Id. Thus, the Court concluded
that, under the circumstances, the attorney’s misconduct may have constituted
extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling and remanded the case for
such a determination. Id. at __, 130 S. Ct. at 2565.
Further, in Maples v. Thomas, the Supreme Court evaluated whether the
misconduct of the appellant’s attorneys amounted to abandonment, and was thus
an extraordinary circumstance, in the context of procedural default. 565 U.S. __,
132 S.Ct. 912, 924, 181 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2012). The petitioner in Maples was an
Alabama state prisoner who was represented by two pro bono attorneys from a
New York law firm. Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 916. As required under Alabama law,
the two New York attorneys engaged an Alabama lawyer to move their admission
pro hac vice, but, otherwise, the Alabama lawyer had no substantive involvement
in Maples’s case. Id. While Maples’s state post-conviction petition was pending,
6
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 7 of 8
the two New York attorneys left their firm and, thus, became ineligible to represent
him. Id. Neither attorney informed Maples of his departure and corresponding
inability to represent Maples. Id. Further, neither sought leave from the state court
to withdraw or moved for substitution of counsel. Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 916-17.
Without the assistance of counsel, Maples did not timely appeal the state court’s
denial of his habeas petition. Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 917. Maples later filed a
federal habeas petition with the district court, which rejected the petition because
of Maples’s previous procedural default in state court. Id. The Supreme Court, on
appeal, concluded that Maples’s attorneys had abandoned him by virtue of their
conduct. Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 924-26. Thus, he had shown that his failure to
timely appeal in state court was due to “extraordinary circumstances quite beyond
his control.” Id. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 927. Accordingly, the Court excused his
procedural default. Id.
We conclude from the record here that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Ryder’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion because the record supports
the court’s conclusion that he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the § 2244(d)
statute of limitations. The district court properly found that none of Ryder’s
attorney’s challenged conduct rose to the level of abandonment and, thus, did not
warrant equitable tolling. Further, as previously noted, an attorney’s negligence in
missing a filing deadline does not constitute abandonment. Accordingly, we affirm
7
Case: 12-13593 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 8 of 8
the district court’s order denying Ryder’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from
prior judgment.
AFFIRMED.
8