Peter Munoz, Jr. v. Gregory Smith

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 17, 201311-17904California566 words

Opinion

Opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 17 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. MUNOZ, Jr., No. 11-17904

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-

RAM

v.

GREGORY SMITH, Warden; MEMORANDUM *

NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 15, 2013 ** San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year

statute of limitations if he shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights

* This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). page

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and

prevented timely…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.