Teal

Teal v. Small

Good Law
27 F. App'x 724
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 21, 2001No. 00-56642; D.C. No. CV-00-02646-CASCalifornia440 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bennie Jay Teal, a California State prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Teal’s habeas petition, see Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 908 , 121 S.Ct. 254 , 148 L.Ed.2d 183 (2000). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Teal contends that his § 2254 petition was timely filed because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AED-PA”) one-year limitation period was tolled during the pendency of his state habeas petitions. We agree.

The AEDPA’s limitation period began to run when Teal’s state conviction became final on August 11, 1998. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999). The AEDPA limitations period was tolled during the pendency of his properly filed applications for state post-conviction relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 , 120 S.Ct. 1846 , 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000). This includes the 30-day period after…

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.