Legal Opinion
Dawson v. Roe
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 18, 2002No. 00-56690; D.C. No. CV-00-01723-RPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ***
Martin Earl Dawson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and vacate and remand.
Dawson contends that his § 2254 petition was timely filed because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year limitation period was equitably tolled while a prior § 2254 petition was pending. This contention has merit.
The one-year statute of limitations…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Duncan v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Willie Lee Miles v. K.W. Prunty, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- James Tillema v. Miles Long, Warden Frankie Sue Del PapaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Marcia Ellen Bunney v. Gwendolyn Mitchell, Warden of the Central California Women's FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Douglas James v. Sheryl Pliler Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.