Legal Opinion
Joseph Stancle v. Ivan Clay
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 28, 2012No. 09-56374PublishedCited by 151 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, Joseph Stancle challenges the district court’s conclusion that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). We confront two issues in determining whether the petition was time-barred. As to statutory tolling, it is only appropriate for the period between two state habeas petitions filed in the same court when the second petition is “limited to an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Carey v. SaffoldSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Jackie Ervin Rasberry v. Rosie B. Garcia, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- In Re ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by151 opinions
- Rudin v. MylesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Steven Forbess v. Steve FrankeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Taniko Smith v. Brian Williams, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Eduardo Hernandez v. Marion SpearmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Margaret Rudin v. Carolyn MylesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
146 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.