Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 1, 2014No. 10-55985Published

1DissentBerzon, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the district court’s dismissal of Stewart’s habeas petition.

In my view, Stewart was entitled to statutory tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one-year limitations period during the 100-day interval between his successive state habeas petitions. Alternatively, I would remand with instructions to hold an evi-dentiary hearing on Stewart’s claim for an equitable exception to AEDPA’s filing deadline under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995), as applied in McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S. -, 133…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API