Uriarte

Uriarte v. Terhune

Good Law
9 F. App'x 753
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 2001No. 00-55873, 00-55964; D.C. No. CV-99-01438-JNK; D. C. No. CV-99-01438-AACalifornia353 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In Appeal No. 00-55873, Francisco U. Uriarte appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

As a preliminary matter, we dismiss Appeal No. 00-55964 as opened in error. The Clerk of this court is directed to transfer Uriarte’s “Addendum to Appellant’s Brief in Response to Appellees Reply Brief’ from Appeal No. 00-55964 to Appeal No. 00-55873.

Uriarte contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for filing federal habeas petitions on the grounds that the following circumstances were “extraordi *754 nary”: (1) Uriarte was transferred to another prison before his “jailhouse lawyer” could file the petition; (2) Uriarte could not timely find another “jailhouse lawyer” or counsel who could file his petition; and (3) he cannot speak, write or understand English. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition on statute of limitations grounds. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999).

Notwithstanding the involuntary transfer to another prison, we conclude that these…

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.