Harold Stonebarger v. Brian Williams

MEMORANDUM

Harold Stonebarger appeals from a judgment of the District of Nevada dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. He argues that the district court erred because he (1) was entitled to equitable tolling sufficient to render his petition timely filed, (2) has demonstrated his “actual innocence” sufficiently to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations, and (3) was entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(B) and (D).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus on statute of limitations grounds. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). Where findings of fact are undisputed, a determination on whether the statute of limitations for a federal habeas corpus petition should be equitably tolled is reviewed de novo as well. See Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2003). If the facts are disputed, however, the review of the district court’s findings is conducted for clear error. Id.; see also Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010). This court may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if our…