Funches

Funches v. Terhune

Good Law
75 F. App'x 621
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 15, 2003No. 01-55362; D. C. No. CV-00-00736-RTCalifornia300 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mitchell Lee Funches appeals pro se the district court’s *622 dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) (providing that a state prisoner’s petition must be filed within one year from the date his conviction becomes final). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition as time-barred, Biggs v. Duncan, No. 01-15917, 2003 WL 21911087 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2003), and we affirm.

Funches is not entitled to statutory tolling for the two-and-a-half-year period between the California Superior Court’s denial of his first habeas corpus petition and the filing of his second petition in that same court. See Delhomme v. Ramirez, No. 00-56148, 2003 WL 21947183 at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2003) (per curiam) (“[E]aeh time a petitioner files a new habeas petition at the same or lower level, ... the subsequent petition has no effect on the already pending application, but triggers an entirely separate round of review.”); Biggs, supra, (concluding that there is no “pending” application between separate rounds of collateral review in…

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.