Self

Self v. Roe

Good Law
22 F. App'x 817
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 20, 2001No. 00-56482; D.C. No. CV-00-00162-JTMCalifornia253 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Thelbert Self appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Because Selfs petition was time-barred by the one-year limitations period, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1), we affirm.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2), the one-year limitations period is tolled for “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review ... is pending.” In Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999) cert denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , *818 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000), we held that the “statute of limitations remains tolled during the intervals between the state court’s disposition of a state habeas petition and the filing of a petition at the next state appellate level.” Id. at 1005 (emphasis added). Self asks us to extend the reasoning of Nino to this case where successive petitions were filed at the same appellate level to the state’s highest court. We cannot do so. See Dils v. Small, 260 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that statute of limitations is not tolled during gap between successive state habeas petitions filed to the state’s highest court). Therefore, because Selfs petition would only be…

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.