Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F.3d 65, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2000)), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Oct. 9, 2001) (No. 01-8722). We agree with the district court that the circumstances advanced by petitioner do not satisfy this standard. 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. 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>). But see Valverde, 224 F.3d at 133-34 (finding
holding that inability to obtain court documents did not constitute extraordinary circumstance holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that pro se status does not in itself constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting tolling holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling