Bowen
United States v. Bowen
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Michael Anthony ' Bowen claims that the district court wrongly dis *842 missed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. He seeks reversal of the district court order or alternatively remand for an evidentiary hearing. Because the relevant facts are known to the parties they are not repeated here.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) established a one-year statute of limitations for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . Because Bowen’s conviction preceded AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996, Bowen was entitled to a one-year grace period in which to file. Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 128 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds, Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 163 F.3d 530, 539-40 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Accordingly, absent equitable tolling, the last date on which Bowen could have timely filed was April 24, 1997. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2001). The court reviews de novo district court determinations regarding equitable tolling and non-compliance with statutes of limitations under AEDPA. E.g. Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th…