files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence.” Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.1999). The issue here is whether the fact that Knight was not informed of the final disposition of his state application until March 4, 1998 entitles him to equitable tolling until that date, and if so, the time within which his petition had to be filed. In this case, the fact that the Supreme Court of Georgia faded to notify Knight of its decision was certainly beyond Knight’s control. Knight, as a pro se imprisoned defendant, exercised diligence in inquiring about the decision. It is understandable that Knight did not make any inquiries until February of 1998 because the Georgia Supreme Court clerk had ass r.2000) (<HOLDING>). We should note that not in every case will a
holding that the limitations period should be tolled until the plaintiff became aware of the facts necessary to support a charge of discrimination holding that aedpas oneyear limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court that seeks review of a state courts denial of postconviction relief holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations holding that the limitations period for a discrimination charge based on tenure denial begins when aggrieved person receives notice of denial not on the last day of employment holding that when prisoner diligently seeks information about the status of his case the limitations period may be equitably tolled until he receives notice of its denial