Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2254; AEDPA statute of limitations; 28 USC § 2244(d); Equitable tolling; Holland v Florida; Menominee Indian Tribe v United States; Attorney illness; “Extraordinary circumstance”; Maples v Thomas; Nassiri v Mackie; Causation; But-for causation; Evidentiary hearing

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations because he failed to show that counsel’s personal difficulties caused the late filing. Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition after the July 2024 deadline. The district court dismissed it as untimely while granting a certificate of appealability on whether counsel’s health circumstances could support tolling. On appeal, the court assumed without deciding that counsel’s illness and his child’s medical issues could qualify as extraordinary circumstances, but held that petitioner still had to establish “a causal link between” those circumstances and the late filing. The court found no error in the district court’s causation finding because counsel accepted new criminal cases, appeared in court, filed motions, and practiced law during the relevant period. If counsel’s “personal difficulties did not bar him from taking on new clients,” they did not bar timely filing. It also reasoned that counsel’s difficulties ended weeks before the deadline and the petition largely copied a previously filed state-court motion, so counsel could have filed at least a “simple ‘protective’ petition.” Finally, the court held that no evidentiary hearing was required because petitioner did not request one and identified no factual questions that would make a hearing necessary. Affirmed.