Zapata

Zapata v. Hartley

Good Law
318 F. App'x 543
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 2009No. 07-55127California355 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Zapata, a California state prisoner, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

I

Zapata’s petition is untimely even after applying the statutory tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D), which tolls the running of the one-year statute of limitations until “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” The factual predicate for Zapata’s claims—his co-defendant’s parole—could have been discovered as early as May 1, 2003, the date of parole, through the exercise of due diligence. Zapata undertook no investigation at all between May 2003 and September 2004, despite long suspecting his claim of prosecutorial misconduct would come to pass in the form of his co-defendant’s early release from prison and despite having procured the help of private investigators and others in the past to confirm his co-defendant’s status. His failure to investigate does not meet the due diligence standard and thus his October 25, 2005 federal habeas petition was filed…

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.