Mark

Mark v. Mueller

Good Law
52 F. App'x 884
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 5, 2002No. 00-16321; D.C. No. C 99-20246-JW (PR)California820 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Marvin E. Mark, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Mark’s conviction became final on February 24, 1997. See Mark v. California, 519 U.S. 1152 , 117 S.Ct. 1089 , 137 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997). His state habeas petition was pending from September 23, 1997, see Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir.2002) (applying the prison mailbox rule to state court filings), to April 24, 1998, see Cal. R. of Court 24(a); Bunney v. Mitchell, 2 62 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), and he is entitled to statutory tolling for this 214-day period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2); Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-10 , 121 S.Ct. 361 , 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000); Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726-27 (9th Cir.2001). Adding 214 days to Mark’s original filing deadline of February 24, 1998, see Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245-47 (9th Cir.2001), produces a new deadline of September 26, 1998. September 26 was a Saturday, so a…

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.