Michael Steel v. Charles Ryan

Good Law
468 F. App'x 659
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 8, 201109-16531California608 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael Steel appeals from the district court’s judgment, dismissing Steel’s habe-as petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Steel contends that the statute of limitations period for his habeas petition should have been equitably tolled based on new evidence of mental impairment and, thus, that his petition was timely filed. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a person in custody has one year from when his state court judgment became final to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because his state judgment became final on June 9, 2005, Steel had until June 9, 2006, to file his federal habeas petition, unless it was equitably tolled.

A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations if he shows (1) “ ‘that he has been pursuing his rights diligently,’ ” and (2) “ ‘that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.’ ” Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)). The extraordinary circumstance must have…

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.