October Term 2009 · Docket 09-5327
Does attorney negligence toll the federal habeas deadline?
Holland argues his lawyer’s failure to notify him of a mandate caused him to miss the filing deadline. Florida contends only intentional misconduct justifies extending that time limit.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Holland’s counsel stated the case turns on one principle.
Florida’s counsel noted the Eleventh Circuit found the line too fine.
Justice Scalia asked about a lawyer who fails to act.
Justice Kennedy asked about the justice in extending deadlines.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Holland seeks equitable tolling of the AEDPA deadline. He claims his attorney failed to notify him of a mandate. This failure caused him to miss the filing window. Florida opposes this extension. The state argues only intentional misconduct qualifies. The Court must define the standard for tolling.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Holland wants the Court to allow equitable tolling for attorney negligence.
Florida wants the Court to limit tolling to intentional misconduct only.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
What each side says
Holland argues that attorney negligence caused the missed deadline.
Florida argues that negligence is too broad a standard for tolling.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if mere negligence suffices for equitable tolling.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the distinction between negligence and intentional malfeasance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Why it matters
This case defines when attorney error excuses a missed deadline. It sets the standard for equitable tolling in federal habeas cases. The outcome affects how courts treat lawyer negligence. It determines whether clients can recover from attorney mistakes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.