context: Although the conduct of Brigian's retained attorney was egregious and Brigian's inability to obtain his court records is unfortunate, it is far from clear whether either situation would constitute an ex traordinary circumstance sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the analysis.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 2000 WL 973752, at *2
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that inability to obtain court documents did not constitute "extraordinary circumstance"
citation_a.sentence: See Smaldone, 273 F.3d at 138 (“[Attorney error [is] inadequate to create the ‘extraordinary1 circumstances equitable tolling requires.”); Davis v. McCoy, No. 00 Civ. 1681, 2000 WL 973752, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2000) (holding that inability to obtain court documents did not constitute “extraordinary circumstance”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 224 F.3d 133, 133-34
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that intentional confiscation of petitioner's legal papers by corrections officer constituted an "extraordinary" circumstance
citation_b.sentence: But see Valverde, 224 F.3d at 133-34 (finding that intentional confiscation of petitioner’s legal papers by corrections officer constituted an “extraordinary” circumstance).