Grays

Grays v. Yarborough

Good Law
146 F. App'x 107
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 2005No. 03-56666; D.C. No. CV-02-09308-VAPCalifornia884 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Marquis D. Grays (“Grays”) appeals pro se the District Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). He contends that AEDPA’s one-year statute-of-limitations period must be statutorily tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) for the entire time he pursued his state collateral remedies and, alternatively, that equitable tolling is warranted. Because Grays is entitled to statutory tolling between the filing and disposition of each of his four state habeas petitions and during all three *109 intervals between petitions, his federal habeas petition was timely. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030 , -, slip op. at 8969 (9th Cir.2005). As a result, we vacate the dismissal of his petition as untimely and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.

I.

The running of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is statutorily tolled while a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending....” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). A state petition is “pending”…

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.