Hon Tse v. Scott McEwen

MEMORANDUM

Hon Keung Tse appeals from a judgment dismissing his federal habeas corpus petition as untimely. We agree with the district court that the petition was not timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d), and so affirm.

Tse argues that AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until March 21, 2008, when he received a complete copy of his trial transcript from his former attorney and realized that his trial counsel did not discuss a six-year potential plea offer with him. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D), Tse asserts that because he did not learn of the factual predicate of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim until he received the trial transcript and had a fellow prisoner review it, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until this time. However, the trial transcripts existed and were in the possession of Tse’s appellate and habeas attorneys since at least early 2006. While represented, Tse was bound by what his attorneys knew or could have known. See Maples v. Thomas, -U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 912, 922 , 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012). Tse has not alleged that either his appellate or habeas counsel abandoned him, see id. at 922-23 , or even that counsel…