Determann

Determann v. Lampert

Good Law
150 F. App'x 623
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 21, 2005No. 04-35976California964 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Phillip Dale Determann, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Our review is de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

I

Determann’s conviction became final before April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Therefore, absent tolling, Determann had until April 23, 1997 to file his petition for writ of habeas corpus. See id. at 1105 ; 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). 1 Petitioner asserts that AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations should be equitably tolled during the time in which he was incarcerated in an out-of-state prison facility in Florence, Arizona, until the date he was returned to Oregon. Equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations is “unavailable in most cases” and permissible only if “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the exclusion applies and that the…

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.