Alexander

Alexander v. Newland

Good Law
20 F. App'x 662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 21, 2001No. 00-16071; D.C. No. CV-99-03117-WHACalifornia449 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Rickey Alexander (“Alexander”) appeals the district court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely. Alexander argued before the district court that the statute of limitations found in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d), was tolled because his prison law library did not contain a copy of AEDPA until well after the limitations period would have expired in his case. The district court, relying on the panel opinion in Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 204 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir.2000), held that inadequacies of the prison law library could not give rise to tolling.

Equitable tolling is available “if extraordinary circumstances beyond a pris *663 oner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.’ ” Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) (internal citations omitted). See also Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir.2001). Statutory tolling is available until an “impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such state action.” 28 U.S.C. §…

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.