Pitts

Pitts v. Roe

Good Law
132 F. App'x 682
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 12, 2005No. 01-57250; D.C. No. CV-01-00361-GAF(SH)California815 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Eldorado Pitts (“Pitts”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition on timeliness grounds. *684 Guillory v. Roe, 329 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.2003).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1), imposes a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of federal habeas corpus petitions. Because Pitts’ conviction became final before the AEDPA was enacted, the statute of limitations began to run on April 25,1996, and expired on April 24, 1997. Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir.2002); Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2001). Pitts filed his first federal habeas petition on December 20, 2000, more than three and one-half years after the statute of limitations had run.

AEDPA provides for “statutory tolling” of its one-year statute of limitations while a “properly filed” petition for state post-conviction collateral review is “pending.” § 2244(d)(2). Pitts argues that he is entitled to statutory tolling…

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.