Whether habeas counsel's unsworn representations can rebut a petitioner's allegation of dishonesty

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was dismissed due to his attorney’s “beyond troubling” failure to timely file. Although Petitioner moved—pro se—for the appointment of alternative federal counsel in 2007, this request was not honored until 2018. Upon the appointment of new counsel, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen his habeas judgment so that he could present evidence that his former attorney’s misconduct justified equitable tolling. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief. These decisions rested solely on a finding that habeas counsel’s failure to timely file was merely negligent, and thus Petitioner’s underlying equitable tolling claim lacked merit. Likewise, that finding relied solely on self-serving statements prior counsel made to Petitioner and the federal courts during litigation regarding the petition’s timeliness. The questions presented are: 1. In determining whether a hearing related to equitable tolling is warranted, do the unsworn representations of an attorney—while that attorney is operating under a conflict of rebut a petitioner’s allegation that those same representations were dishonest? 2. Is an evidentiary hearing related to equitable tolling appropriate when a habeas petitioner has made a showing that the petition’s untimeliness is attributable to his attorney’s false representations, lack of communication, and failure to follow the petitioner’s explicit directives? i