Michael Wayne Jenkins v. Dan Johnson, Superintendent
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentO’Scannlain, Circuit Judge
The court holds that Jenkins’s state post-conviction petition was “properly filed” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) on the basis of a purported ambiguity in Oregon law that existed at the time of filing of his petition for relief but has since been clarified. I respectfully disagree. The plain meaning of Oregon statutory law was perfectly clear, and we are bound to follow it. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court, and hold that Jenkins was not entitled to statutory tolling and that his federal petition was therefore untimely under AEDPA.
I
At issue, of course, is whether…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Artuz v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Fortunado L. Dictado,petitioner-Appellant v. Kenneth Ducharme,respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Bartz v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Wallis v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998