Steven Fue v. Martin Biter

Good Law
842 F.3d 650·2016 WL 6803045·2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20614
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 17, 201612-55307California3,224 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

After the California Supreme Court denied Steven Fue’s direct appeal from his conviction for carjacking, Fue had one year in which to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Instead, Fue filed a state habeas petition, which tolled the time for filing his federal petition. When Fue finally filed his federal habeas petition, the district court dismissed it as untimely. Fue argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because the California Supreme Court never notified him that it had denied his state petition. We hold that Fue’s lack of knowledge of the denial, if proven, would entitle him to equitable tolling. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

I

Fue was sentenced to twenty-six years in state prison after a jury found him guilty of carjacking, second degree robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful driving of a vehicle. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, and the California Supreme Court denied Fue’s petition for review on February 18, 2009. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year limitations period for filing a federal habeas corpus…

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.