Loftis v Chrisman

Loftis appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition arguing equitable tolling should apply. The panel agreed and reversed and remanded. It held that under the facts here-the stat court’s failure to deliver the state postconviciton order to Loftis, the state district court’s order granting Loftis time to file an appeal, the state appeals court unexpected ruling that apparently mandatory requirements were not and dismissing the appeal, Oklahoma’s rejection of the mailbox rule and Loftis’ diligence in pursuing his rights-combined to make tolling appropriate here as Loftis was effectively mislead by the state courts as to whether he needed to file a protective habeas petition or not.