Steven W. Collier v. Bob Bayer

Petitioner-Appellant Stephen Wayne Collier appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court denied Collier’s habeas petition for failing to comply with the State of Nevada’s time limits for pursuing habeas relief. Collier challenges the adequacy of Nevada’s time limit for filing habeas corpus appeals and the tolling provisions provided therein. Fur *1281 ther, he argues cause and prejudice to excuse his purported procedural default.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We reverse the district court’s decision and hold that the particular application of Nevada’s time limits and tolling provisions in Collier’s ease was not adequately established prior to his appeal. Because we reverse on this ground, we do not reach the question of whether Collier had cause or suffered prejudice.

Standard of Review

Federal district court decisions denying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions for procedural default are reviewed de novo. Fields v. Calderon, 125 F.3d 757, 759-60 (9th Cir.1997). Factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed for…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because the majority’s opinion allows a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus to mock the Nevada statutory deadline for filing a habeas petition from a judgment of conviction, simply by filing one or any number of motions to correct an illegal sentence, no matter how meretricious the motions. Henceforth, any prisoner convicted before the effective date of Sullivan v. Nevada, 96 P.3d 761 (Nev.2004) — September 3, 2004 — will be able to file a baseless motion to correct an illegal sentence as a prelude to filing a Nevada state habeas petition on the ground that the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence creates a one-year opportunity to file a habeas petition. I disagree with the majority’s analysis on three major points.

*1289 First, it was well-established in Nevada law that a motion to correct an illegal sentence did not either re-start or toll 1 the one-year time limit in which to file a habe-as petition under Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) § 34.726(1). The majority opinion confuses appeals and habeas petitions, both of which are used to attack the merits of a judgment of conviction, with a motion to correct an illegal sentence,…

408 F.3d 1279 STEVEN W. COLLIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bob BAYER, Respondent-Appellee. No. 04-15017. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 4, 2004. Filed June 3, 2005. Franny A. Forsman and John C. Lambrose, Las Vegas, NV, for the petitioner-appellant. Brian Sandoval and Robert E. Wieland, Reno, NV, for the respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-00641-ECR/RAM. Before B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges. BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge. 1 Petitioner-Appellant Stephen Wayne Collier appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court denied Collier's habeas petition for failing to comply with the State of Nevada's time limits for pursuing habeas relief. Collier challenges the adequacy of Nevada's time limit for filing habeas corpus appeals and the tolling provisions provided therein. Further, he argues cause and prejudice to excuse his purported procedural default. 2 We have…