United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-3227 RONNIE L. FAMOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LARRY FUCHS, WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:10-cv-00707 — William C. Griesbach, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 29, 2022 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. In 1998, in Wisconsin state court, a jury convicted Ronnie Famous of four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of exposing a child to harmful material. The court sentenced him to 168 years of confinement. Mr. Famous then challenged his convictions on direct appeal. In 2001, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals 2 No. 19-3227 affirmed his convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court 1 denied relief on November 27, 2001. Mr. Famous did not file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. The one-year statute of limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) therefore began to run on February 25, 2002, the date on which the time to file a petition 2 expired. Mr. Famous failed to file a federal petition for habeas corpus by the one-year deadline. When he finally filed his petition on August 17, 2010, the district court dismissed it as untimely, rejecting Mr. Famous’s arguments that he was entitled to the defenses of statutory and equitable estoppel. We now affirm the judgment of the district court. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Famous the defense of statutory estoppel. Mr. Famous failed to set forth sufficient information to raise statutory estoppel to the State’s statute of limitations defense. Indeed, he failed to provide even the information reasonably available to him. Given the laconic nature of his submission, the district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Famous’s request to take further discovery on that issue. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in reject- ing the defense of equitable tolling. The court did not clearly err in concluding that, even excluding the period when his appellate attorney allegedly retained his file, Mr. Famous still had not filed his petition in a timely manner. The district

1 R.65 at 3. 2 See Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 (setting forth the ninety-day period for filing a peti- tion for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States). No. 19-3227 3 court’s decision that Mr. Famous’s chronic mental illness did not impede a timely filing also is supported by the record and therefore is not clearly erroneous. I BACKGROUND We begin by setting out, in broad strokes, the legal land- scape and essential facts of the situation before us. AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations period on habeas petitioners in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). But the one-year statute of limitations is tolled if the petitioner applies for state postconviction relief or for other collateral review of the judgment. § 2244(d)(2). Moreover, the statute of limitations does not run if an “impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States … prevented [the petitioner] from filing.” § 2244(d)(1)(B). Additionally, the doctrine of equitable tolling also may apply to a hab