Ramsey
Ramsey v. Yearwood
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*612 MEMORANDUM ***
California state prisoner Tommy Lonnell Ramsey, Jr. (“Ramsey”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”) habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo (Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 778 (9th Cir.2000)), and we reverse and remand.
Both the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court denied Ramsey’s state habeas petitions as untimely under a state procedural bar (see In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 (1993)). Based on those rulings, the district court denied Ramsey’s federal petition on two independent grounds:
Both rulings have been rendered erroneous in light of intervening caselaw.
First, we have since held in Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2000) that the Clark procedural rule, as applied before 1998, is not independent and adequate because application of that rule involves consideration of the merits of federal constitutional claims (see also Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015 , 1018 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000)). 1 Hence Ramsey’s federal claims are not procedurally defaulted.