Jones
Jones v. Castro
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Petitioner Timothy Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s dismissal of Jones’ habeas petition de novo, Griffin v. Johnson, 350 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir.2003), and we reverse and remand.
The district court erred when it concluded that Jones had failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in pursuing his petition and was therefore not entitled to equitable tolling. In considering diligence in the context of a request for equitable tolling, we typically have focused on whether the petitioner unjustifiably delayed in pursuing his petition. See, e.g., Guillory v. Roe, 329 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.2003); Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2002); Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999). After Jones’ first federal petition was dismissed without prejudice, he quickly sought to exhaust his claims in state court, filing his second state petition only five days later. And once the California Supreme Court denied his state petition, Jones returned to federal court only eleven days later.