Sutton

Sutton v. Stewart

Good Law
51 F. App'x 752
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 27, 2002No. 01-17103; D.C. No. CV-00-02109-SRBCalifornia472 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*753 MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Michael Allen Sutton appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction by jury for sexual assault, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault and theft. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Sutton’s conviction became final on August 23, 1993, so his federal habeas petition filed on November 6, 2000 is untimely absent tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations.

Sutton first contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because the prison law library was inadequate. Specifically, he claims that no posted notice of AEDPA rules and the lack of a hired paralegal constitute extraordinary circumstances. His claim is unpersuasive. There is no precedent for his claim that notice of AEDPA requirements must be posted in the prison law library. In addition, states are not required to hire paralegals to assist prisoners. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d…

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.