Griffin v. United States Of America

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion for relief from 9 Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 4/30/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

No. 11 at 3-4. Griffin is not entitled to
equitable tolling. The Court DENIES the
motion for reconsideration.

JAMES R. GRIFFIN,
This36 day of April 2014.

Petitioner,
V

.

4:10-cv-108
4:07-cr-43

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
[I] 1I) r
Petitioner James R. Griffin moves the
Court for reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 petition pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). ECF No. 28.
Griffin argues that the Supreme Court's
decisions in Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S.
631(2010), and Maples v. Thomas, 132 S.
Ct. 912 (2012), make "clear that
abandonment by an attorney is grounds for
equitable tolling of the federal habeas filing
limitation period." ECF No. 28 at 2.
The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in
Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections
shows that Griffin's contention misses the
mark. 742 F.3d 473, 481-85 (11th Cir.
2014). The extraordinary circumstances
necessary for equitable tolling require
abandonment of the attorney-client
relationship, but abandonment alone does
not trigger equitable tolling. Id. at 481-82.
A petitioner must still exercise reasonable
diligence in pursuit of a petition. Id. at 477,
480.
Here, the Court determined that Griffin
failed to exercise reasonable diligence. ECF

B. AVANT EDEN
UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN DIS

LD, JUDGE
STRICT COURT
CT OF GEORGIA